An Analysis of Fulbrighters' National Identity THESIS

American and Honest About it: An analysis of Fulbrighters’ national identity

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Marisa Lally

Graduate Program in Educational Studies

The Ohio State University

2017

Master's Examination Committee:

Dr. Marc Johnston-Guerrero, Advisor

Dr. Susan R. Jones

Copyrighted by

Marisa Lally

2017

Abstract

As higher education becomes further entangled with globalization, national governments have an impact on how students view themselves and their ties to their nations of citizenship. In the United States, the Fulbright U.S. Student Program is one of the most long-standing and prestigious government-funded international exchange programs in the world. However, little research has been done on how the participants of these programs make meaning of their experiences once completing their role as a cultural diplomat abroad, especially as it relates to national identity. The purpose of this constructivist narrative inquiry is to understand the national identity of students who participate in U.S. government international education programs through the meaning-making of their experience and identities. The findings of this study indicate that Fulbright scholars view themselves as cultural diplomats for the United States on an international context, which in turn complicates their understanding of their own identities Americans.

Acknowledgments

I am forever grateful for the Higher Education and Student Affairs faculty for imparting their knowledge and passion for scholarship to me. In particular, I would like to thank Dr.

Marc Johnston-Guerrero for being the most supportive advisor that I could imagine, and

Dr. Susan Jones for welcoming me into the world of qualitative research. I owe a special thank you to my parents who told me that women can and should do anything they want, and to my partner Tyler for listening to me talk about my research for hours on end.

Finally, I must acknowledge Dr. Jennifer Gilbride-Brown for continuing to inspire my critical thinking about social issues in my scholarship and work with students. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

iii

Vita

May 2011 ...... Minerva High School

2015...... B.A., The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Educational Studies

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments...... iii

Vita ...... iv

Fields of Study ...... iv

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..viii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..ix

Foreword ...... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 4

Purpose and Guiding Research Questions ...... 6

Guiding Theories and Contexts: National identity and Cultural Diplomacy ...... 7

National Identity ...... 7

Cultural Diplomacy ...... 9

Defining Terms ...... 9

Significance of the Study ...... 11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 13

Identity Development and College Students ...... 15

What is the Nation? ...... 18

What is National Identity? ...... 19

Perceptions of the Fulbright Program ...... 34

Summary ...... 38

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 40

Purpose and Guiding Research Questions…………………………………………..39

Positionality Statement…………………………………………………………….. 41

Epistemological Assumptions: Constructivism……………………………………. 42

Methodology: Narrative Inquiry………………………………………………….....43

Inclusion Criteria……………………………………………………………………45

Data Collection……………………………………………………………………..45

Participant Profiles………………………………………………………………….47

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………….52

Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………………..54

Summary ...... 553

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS...... 57

Government-sponsored Americans Abroad: Reflections on National Identity ...... 58

Michelle: “What do you mean I’m not black?” ...... 58

Frances: “Who cares what I’m thinking? It’s about these little nuggets” ...... 68

Summary of Findings ...... 79

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 81

National Identity in the Findings: The Fulbrighters’ Perspectives ...... 81

Hyphenated American ...... 82

Faith as a Filter ...... 84

Fulbrighters as Cultural Diplomats ...... 86

Defending American Identity ...... 87

A Holistic Perspective ...... 89

Limitations ...... 90

Areas for Future Research ...... 91

Implications for Practice ...... 94

Conclusion ...... 97

REFERENCES ...... 99

Appendix A: Recruitment Message ...... 109

Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer ...... 111

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form ...... 112

Appendix D: Interview Protocol ...... 116

Appendix E: Follow-up Interview Protocol ...... 118

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Visual representation of literature review ...... 14

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Participant Profiles ...... 49

Table 2. Three-Dimensional Narrative Space Structure…………………………………54

Foreword

The Fulbright Board places its confidence in you to fulfill Senator Fulbright’s goal to develop international understanding. This effort depends on a commitment from Fulbright grantees to establish open communication and long-term cooperative relationships. As a Fulbright recipient and a representative of the United States, you will have the opportunity to work collaboratively with international partners in educational, political, cultural, economic, and scientific fields. We hope you will engage directly as well in your local community throughout your Fulbright exchange. In so doing, you will exemplify the qualities of service, leadership, and excellence that have been hallmarks of this Program for 70 years (Fulbright Scholarship Acceptance Letter).

As an undergraduate student, I applied for the Critical Language Scholarship on a

whim. I was studying international relations, but rather than much of the dense political

theory that I was learning in class, what I really wanted to know was – how do countries

interact with each other? What does “international relations” mean on an individual

level? Can I be a part of building those international relationships?

As a Critical Language Scholar in Malang, Indonesia, I was able to engage some of those questions that I had. I learned that international relations did not necessarily mean well-dressed diplomats attending expensive dinners in Geneva; it also meant college kids flying across the world with just a suitcase and an elementary foreign

language book. For me, it meant breaking fast with my Indonesian friends during

Ramadhan and singing the Indonesian national anthem on the American Independence

Day. Ultimately, diplomacy meant being the best representative of America that I could

and using that opportunity to portray sharing, patience, and love.

When I came to graduate school, my experiences intersected with the questions

that I had about what it means to be a cultural diplomat on behalf of the United States

government, using education as a tool. The Fulbright U.S. Student Program is one of the

most prestigious exchange programs in the world charging students, scholars, and recent

graduates with building positive relationships worldwide. I was fascinated by the

tremendous amount of responsibility placed on students by the U.S. government without

much developmental support in return. I knew that I had the opportunity to explore this

question further by conducting qualitative research and engaging with people who had

this unique experience.

Using constructivism as a lens to develop the participants’ narratives was such a

joy, because my essential epistemological assumptions connected me with the

participants of the study in a way that centered their experience. I was attracted to

constructivism because the perspective emphasizes co-creation of knowledge among

researcher and participant. By trusting the participants and learning to take judgment out

of our interactions, I was able to create the most honest representation of their stories as I

possibly could. Constructivism allowed me to be honest with myself and with readers as I

developed the beautiful narratives that the participants had to offer.

I personally feel so strongly connected to this study because I believe that the

Fulbright program has the power and resources to make positive changes in our world.

The United States send thousands of talented people abroad each year in order to foster strong relationships across borders, across ways of life, and across ways of thinking and

understanding. Because of the potential that the Fulbright program has to impact our

global community in a positive way, it is imperative that we pay attention to how this

program impacts our students and our higher education community as a whole. Benedict

Anderson (1982) sought to understand why people were willing to kill and die on behalf of an imagined community- the nation. I seek to understand why people are willing to love across borders despite the strength of their imagined community.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

“The nation is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual

inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a

deep, horizontal comradeship” (Anderson, 1982, p. 50).

Searching for knowledge is not a stationary undertaking; in fact, people have

embarked on journeys across the globe to expand their minds for centuries, crossing

national borders to learn from people and experiences unique to their own contexts.

Students of vocational trades in medieval Europe would cross territorial borders to pursue

apprenticeships and develop their skills; universities in colonial Latin America were

filled with European scholars sent to implement a traditional educational model (Kim,

2009). While these students across history sought knowledge worldwide, they have always been subject to perceptions of their own national identities, an identity that comes with characteristics and loyalties specific to the nation to which a person is a member

(Anderson, 1982).

Although students crossing national borders has been on the higher education landscape for over one thousand years, the rapid expansion of the market has created a need for higher education professionals to examine traditional models of academic mobility in the context of today’s climate of globalization (Hira, 2003). Modern day globalization has affected seemingly everything– communication, trade, politics, fashion 4

– and higher education is no exception. In fact, higher education is an important export

sector for national economies in the last few decades, with institutions of higher

education attracting high numbers of international students (Healey, 2008).

Higher education professionals have a significant role in designing and assessing

international programs within their own university contexts, but they are not the only

stakeholders in the realm of international education. In fact, students, scholars,

companies, non-profits organizations, and national governments all contribute to the climate of academic mobility as it exists today. For example, the examination of international education is a developing academic and professional arena, with non-profit

organizations such as NAFSA: Association of International Educators and The Forum on

Education Abroad leading the movement to discuss and create knowledge surrounding

these increasingly pertinent issues in education broadly.

Many options for international education are not provided by universities at all.

International programs aside from the traditional university-sponsored ones include those

created by third-party for-profit providers, volunteer organizations, and national

governments. These entities have motivations outside of that of a university, whose

primary purpose is to create and disseminate knowledge (Healey, 2008). In particular, the

United States government has a long history with international education that has

developed throughout history with strong relationships to war, national security interests,

and diplomatic efforts (Nye, 1990; Schneider, 2009). It is unclear whether students

understand these varying motivations when they participate in international education

programs. This analysis will explore the experiences of students who participate in the

Fulbright U.S. Student Program, the U.S. government’s flagship international education program, in order to better understand how students make meaning of this unique scenario in relation to their national identities.

Purpose and Guiding Research Questions

Because little research has been done on the experiences of students who participate in government international program, this study aims to explore those students’ meaning-making processes about their national identities within that particular context. I have chosen to approach the following study using a constructivist narrative inquiry so that I am able to co-construct a narrative of participant experiences alongside the participants of the study. The constructivist approach has facilitated a collective development of a stories surrounding the research questions and gaps in understanding in the higher education literature (Creswell, 2013). In essence, the participants and I have co-created new knowledge that relates to the experience of participating in the Fulbright

U.S. Student Program as an American person.

The purpose of this constructivist narrative inquiry is to understand the national identity of students who participate in U.S. government international education programs through the meaning-making of their experience and identities. The questions that guide the study focus upon identity development and experiences. In particular, I aim to better understand:

• How does national identity become salient in the context of Fulbright?

• As Fulbright scholars, what meaning are the participants making of their

experience?

• In what ways do cultural diplomacy and national identity interact for the

participants?

These questions guide the narrative inquiry in a way that has allowed me to further

investigate students’ meaning-making processes in the context of government exchange.

Through two semi-structured interviews of five Fulbright alumni over the course of

several months, I collected stories surrounding this important topic. In the following

analysis, I will explore these questions and co-create knowledge using the stories

provided to me by participants.

Guiding Theories and Contexts: National identity and Cultural Diplomacy

In order to explore how students make meaning of their national identity within

the context of a government exchange program, I situate the study within the contexts of

national identity and cultural diplomacy. Although identity has historically been central

to the study of higher education and student affairs (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, &

Renn, 2010; Jones & Abes, 2013), less attention has been paid to national identity.

Moreover, governmental diplomatic efforts impact higher education despite minimal

efforts to investigate these efforts’ influence on the higher education system and on

students. When these two concepts intersect, they highlight a gap in understanding of

how students conceptualize how their national identity interacts with cultural diplomacy.

National identity. Because the study of identity is fundamental to student affairs research and practice, further investigating the origin and development of certain social

identities can better inform student affairs scholars and professionals in their endeavors

(Jones & Abes, 2013). Studies show that the salience of given social identities can impact

an individual’s behaviors, including academic performance, participation in ethnic- or heritage-based organizations, or career choices (Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker, 2012; Ethier

& Deaux, 1994; McGlone & Aronson, 2006). In other words, the more salient the identity, the more likely a person may be to change behaviors or make choices with that identity in mind. This concept guides the study as participants reflect upon their identities as American students and citizens.

National identity and national identity development are deeply embedded within the construct of the nation – a concept that is not simply defined, but rather, has immense social, political, and economic implications (Anderson, 1982). The nation is an imagined community that is both limited and sovereign (Anderson, 1982). Governments have an incentive to influence their citizens’ perceptions of their own national identity because nationalism provides government with political, economic, and social power. (Nye, 1990;

Smith, 1991; Andreouli & Howarth, 2013).

Although several studies explore national identity development in college students (Dolby, 2004; Fuller-Rowell, Ong, & Phinney, 2013), little research has been done about students’ national identities and how they navigate them throughout their college experience. These studies provide insight into students’ reflections on national identity both domestically and abroad, creating a foundation for the examination of college students’ national identity, a minimally explored social identity in higher education research. This study aims to expand upon these previous inquiries by situating students’ national identity in a context unique to studies that have been completed in the past.

Cultural diplomacy. While understanding national identity situates the meaning-

making processes of the participants in this study, understanding cultural diplomacy will

better situate the experiential context. Cultural diplomacy describes the efforts of a

national government to form positive relationships with other national governments

(Schneider, 2009). Historically, the United States has employed various cultural

diplomacy efforts, through music, arts, literature, and through education, which is the

focus of this study. The Fulbright U.S. Student Program is an exchange program that

provides thousands of fellowships for American university students to nations worldwide

and has been the nation’s flagship exchange program since 1946 (Fulbright, 2016). This

program is a long-standing example of how the U.S. national government implements

cultural diplomacy strategies through the higher education system.

National identity and cultural diplomacy provide a lens through which to view the experiences of college students in a climate of rapid globalization and international competitiveness. When the two concepts intersect with the system of higher education, the literature exposes a gap in understanding: minimal investigation has been done by scholars to better understand students’ national identities when they become a tool in a national government’s agenda to influence global opinion in a positive way.

Defining Terms

The following terms are terms that are used throughout the study that are central to the study, uncommon terms, or are used in a unique way within the context of the study.

• Academic mobility: also known as “educational mobility;” describes the

migratory flow of students in higher education studying, interning, or working

outside of nations in which they hold citizenship (Perkins & Neumayer, 2014).

• Citizenship: the institutionalized equivalent of a nation, realized by top-down

policies and regulations – a citizen realizes his or her duties and expectations as

such through these policies and regulations set forth by a nation-state (Andreouli

& Howarth, 2012); a person’s institutional allegiance to a nation-state (Gutiérrez,

2001).

• Government-sponsored international exchange: an example of academic mobility

(see academic mobility above) funded and organized by a national government,

not a university or third-party vendor (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,

2016).

• Fulbright U.S. Student Program: The Fulbright Commission describe the

program as follows on their website (2016) – “The Fulbright U.S. Student

Program provides grants for individually designed study/research projects or for

English Teaching Assistant Programs. A candidate will submit a Statement of

Grant Purpose defining activities to take place during one academic year in a

participating country outside the U.S... Through engagement in the community,

the individual will interact with their hosts on a one-to-one basis in an atmosphere

of openness, academic integrity, and intellectual freedom, thereby promoting

mutual understanding” (Fulbright, 2016). From now on, I will either refer to the

program as “Fulbright U.S. Student Program: or simply “Fulbright.”

These definitions appear throughout the review of pertinent literature and inform the methods of research for the study.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant to the field of higher education because it explores the understudied area of national identity for college students in the unique context of cultural diplomacy. The idea that students may be used as a tool for cultural diplomacy purposes by their national governments is unique from traditional study abroad programs.

In this sense, student affairs professionals who interact with and create programs for university students can utilize knowledge of national identity development when helping students make meaning of their own national identities. When developing programs or discussing a student’s identity development, student affairs professionals may have little to no scholarly or statistical information related to national identity, despite its salience for students in various capacities. This lack of information is especially pertinent in the context of government-sponsored exchange because of the significant political implications in which the student becomes implicit.

The study also explores an educational program provided for university students but created and funded by a non-university organization, the U.S. Department of State.

Student affairs professionals often have control over the type of educational resources and post-experience reflection a student will have in a university-sponsored program, which is not the case for the Fulbright program. Research related to this program from a 11 higher education and student affairs perspective might be useful to both higher education professionals and government-based professionals who seek to expand knowledge on issues that are related to their expertise in an indirect way.

For example, a student affairs professional may not directly consider how governmental cultural diplomacy efforts directly influences the experiences of students or the higher education system as a whole; on the other hand, a government professional may not consider ways to reflect upon national identity with students upon their return to their home institutions.

The findings of the study, which imply that the Fulbright U.S. Student program indeed influences participants’ understandings of themselves as a result of their role as a cultural diplomat, illuminates a responsibility on the part of professionals involved with this program to reflect on its impact on people and provide support services accordingly.

This type of study will open the door for conversations between such entities to reach similar goals – encouraging students to be informed and productive global citizens.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter serves as a review and introduction to pertinent theoretical and

empirical literature on national identity as a social identity and the use of higher

education as a strategy for cultural diplomacy. The review is divided into two major

sections: national identity and cultural diplomacy, respectively. These sections are

representative of two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram; the two intersection of the

two ideas represent the gap in understanding that exists in the literature.

In the first half, I introduce the concept of identity, then focus particularly on the

construct of the nation and how national identity intersects with the larger conversation of

college student development. After I have analyzed national identity and the role of the nation in the college student experience, I will then frame the study within the context of cultural diplomacy, more specifically higher education as a tool for governments’ implementation of soft power practices.

Gap in Understanding

National Identity Cultural Diplomacy • Identity • International Development and College Students Education • Government- • Nation • National Identity Sponsored International • National Identity Programs and College Student Development • The Fulbright Program Figure 1: Visual

Representation of Literature Review

National Identity

Although national identity significantly influences an individual’s worldview, the studies of nationalism and national identity are concentrated in political science, geography, and cultural anthropology. However, the concept of national identity proves useful to examine within the context of higher education, especially in light in the proliferation of international student mobility and globalization within higher education

(Altbach, 2004; Gieser, 2015; Hira, 2003). The study of national identity should not remain in silos within academic disciplines, but rather should be explored through an interdisciplinary approach in order to better understand how this particular social identity impacts behavior and understandings of self and others.

I aim to examine national identity and, more specifically, how that concept

14 applies to an individual’s understanding of self and others. Furthermore, when understanding social identities of any kind, it is important to first situate the discussion within identity itself, the study of identity, and especially how it relates to student affairs

(Jones & Abes, 2013; Stehr & Ufer, 2009). The connection to student affairs is crucial because it clarifies the gap in understanding in both scholarship and practice in higher education and student affairs has with regard to national identity.

Although the study of identity is fundamental to college students and their development (Evans et al., 2010), the literature lacks consideration of national identity and the construct of the nation in relation to college students, despite the importance of institutions of higher education in creating and perpetuating national identities worldwide

(Schneider, 2000). Examining this intersection with allow for a deeper understanding of national identity’s role in higher education.

Identity development and college students. The study of identity and identity development are hallmarks of student affairs research and practice (Jones & Abes, 2013).

Identity development is situated within the larger conversation of college student development theory within higher education literature. Scholars describe the study of identity as “an investigation into the stories of one’s life,” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 5) especially as an individual constructs an understanding of self among interactions with the external world. As literature about identity grows among disparate disciplines and for distinct purposes, so does its definition. Simply, identity answers the questions of “Who am I?” and calls upon notions of class, gender, ethnicity, race, and nation (Yon, 2000). In this narrative analysis, I will focus specifically of notions of nation.

Social identities influence an individuals’ self-perception, interactions with others,

and their ideological, social, and economic decisions; these identities do not stagnate, but

rather they shift in an individual’s self-perception depending on context. (Evans et. al,

2010). A lens through which to view students’ perceptions of their own identities is the

concept of identity salience. Identity salience refers to the prominence attached to a

particular experience, idea, or feeling related to an identity (Jones & Abes, 2013). In

social psychology, scholars assert that there is greater probability of behavioral changes

according to a specific social identity if there is a greater salience of that identity in an

individual’s life (Brenner et. al, 2014).

Social psychologists Ethier and Deaux (1994), who explored the relationship

between identity and its context, argued that identity salience can be predicted if an

individual is highly identified with the group, regardless of context; if there is a contrast

between self-perception and context; and if there is a contrast between past background

and current context (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). This theory, relating identity salience and

context, can be particularly useful in this case when applied to the national context. Abes,

Jones, & McEwen’s Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity

(RMMDI) (2007) provides a visual model for students’ identity development that

considers their context. Because social identities are the basis of this model, it is critical

to comprehend the role of privilege and oppression in social identities. Privilege and

oppression are central to understanding social identities because they are inherent to the creation of them. In other words, students gain awareness of certain identities because of the privilege or oppression that come with having that identity in a particular context

(Jones & Abes, 2013).

An example of change in context that may influence a person’s identity saliency is a woman who went to a women’s college and begins her first job as the only woman at her new company; her identity as a woman may be salient in both contexts, yet each context may influence her perception of that identity. In the RMMDI, individuals perceive social identities through a meaning-making filter. This filter allows the individual to factor the current life context into the way they perceive their social identity as salient.

Studies also show that there is a relationship between a student’s salient identities and academic performance (Brenner et al., 2012; McGlone & Aronson, 2006). For example, in McGlone and Aronson’s 2006 study on identity saliency and academic performance, when women were primed to consider their identity as students at a private college, they performed at significantly higher levels than when they were primed to consider their identities as women. These studies further support the idea if a student perceives a social identity as more salient at a given point in life, his or her behaviors are likely to follow suit. Brenner et al. (2012) found that the subjective value of an identity precedes the way an individual performs that identity, in this case when being a

“scientist” was subjectively valued for students in STEM fields, they were more successful academically.

Identity theory asserts that the salience of a given identity in an individual will significantly impact that individual’s social interactions (Brenner et al., 2012). While the self exists regardless of context at the most basic level, the self must exist within its

17 context. In other words, society and culture provide a context within which an individual must operate – while societal context does not predict an individual’s path of identity development, an individual’ development cannot remain uninfluenced by context

(Baumeister & Muraven, 1996).

These theories of identity salience will provide tools with which to view the relationship between students’ experience in a government-sponsored exchange and their national identity development. Identity salience is useful to consider both because governments are deeply invested in perpetuating the national identity, which I will further explain in the following sections, and because identity salience is a strong predictor of changes in behavior. If students experience a surge in the salience of any particular social identity – gender, ethnic, racial, socioeconomic, and national, to name a few – their behaviors are likely to adjust based on that change.

What is the nation? The idea of the nation has many political, cultural, economic, and social implications; therefore, its definition has long been a topic of debate for many scholars of international relations and nationalism (Barrington, 1997; Fan,

2010; Smith, 2002). The nation has traditionally been widely publicly perceived as a territory governed by a formal government (Stehr & Ufer, 2009); using this perception, a nation is the type of entity that is recognized by the United Nations provided that this definition is set in the modern day. Given the complexity of current affairs, however, it is clear that such a simplistic definition of nation may not be sufficient.

In fact, since the 1980s, definitions of the nation have been evolving due to significant scholarly contributions from political scientists, cultural anthropologists, and

geographers (Anderson, 1982; Appadurai, 1993). The international relations scholar

Benedict Anderson shaped the way scholars view nationalism studies and the definition

of a nation in his 1982 book Imagined Communities. In his book, Anderson described the nation as not solely territorial and introduced the idea that national identity is not solely tied to political or bureaucratic issues when he asserted that “nationalism commands profound emotional legitimacy” (Anderson, 1982, p. 4).

Due to Anderson’s contributions, a widely acknowledged definition of nation is

“an imagined political community imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”

(Anderson, 1982, p. 6). Scholars expanded upon the idea of the imagined community, noting, for example, that the nation is a product of culture and the collective imagination rather than definitions of rigid territories (Appadurai, 1993). These assertions developed scholars’ understanding of the nation past its purely functional purpose to an entity with immense emotional implications - citizens of a nation are willing to kill and die on behalf of their national identity (Anderson, 1982).

What is national identity? At the intersection of identity and nation is national identity. National identity is collective; in other words, it describes the shared sense of belonging to a group (Gutierrez, 2001). This identity in particular characterizes the self- identification of the peoples of nation-states. One working definition of national identity includes habits, attitudes, beliefs, sentiments and emotions that meet the demands of modern labor, and a representation of cultural originality that citizens with a shared identity recreate a sense of belonging in an increasingly interdependent world (Gutierrez,

2001).

Because there are no homogenous nation-states today in terms of culture and linguistics, a common practice of nation-states is to neutralize or disappear unwanted immigrant or indigenous ethnicities by encouraging ethnic members to align their values with the values of a national citizenry through policies and diplomacy (Gutierrez, 2001, p. 12). A timely example of this in America’s national discourse in President Trump’s executive order to ban refugees and immigrants from certain countries to ensure the security of America’s borders. The order reads, “The presence of such individuals in the

United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest” (Exec. Order 13769, 2017). In this scenario, President Trump has made a bold claim that certain immigrant identities are

“contrary to the national interest,” reinforcing the idea of American nationalism.

Much of the homogeneity described as a characteristic of national identity that is useful to the nation-state can be seen in stereotypes as perceived by members outside of that particular national identity. Gutierrez, for example, expressed the concept that people all over the world believe that Scotsmen are frugal, Germans are belligerent, Frenchmen are amorous, and Americans are naive and aggressive (Gutierrez, 2001). While these stereotypes are only narrow and simplistic expressions of national identity, they are the characteristics of national identity that are easily identifiable worldwide. It is important to consider the ways in which scholars approach defining the nation in order to understand how individuals perceive themselves within the related identity.

The nation-state acquires significant political and economic advantages from developing its national identity. States institutionalize national identity through

20 citizenship, controlling who can identify with the characteristics that define that identity, legally, institutionally, and culturally (Andreouli & Howarth, 2013). In fact, the naturalization process allows governments to implement policies to ensure that foreigners who obtain the citizenship from that government assimilate appropriately and exhibit behaviors of nationals of that country (Andreouli & Howarth, 2013). Some examples of nations ensuring the assimilation of foreign nationals include language and history tests upon application for citizenship and the renunciation of the former nation’s citizenship.

Although the development of national identity has significant uses politically and economically for the state, “national identities also fulfill more intimate, internal functions for individuals in communities” (Smith, 1991, p. 16). The clearest example of this intimate function is the socialization of the members as nationals or citizens achieved through public mass education systems through which state authorities hope to indoctrinate national devotion into a distinctive and homogenous culture (Smith, 1991).

In the United States, this strategy may be implemented through a specific and

U.S.-focused national history curriculum that is required within primary and secondary public schooling. National identity signifies the bonds of solidarity among members of communities united by shared memories, myths and traditions that may find expression in states of their own. These shared experiences are completely distinctive from the purely legal and bureaucratic ties of the nation-state (Smith, 1991, p. 15).

How does national identity intersect with college student development? While the literature provides a comprehensive perspective on identity development for college students and national identity independently, little research has been done on national

identity development specifically with regard to college students. In fact, much of the

research on national identity provides a broader lens from a nationwide perspective rather

than its development within an individual contextualized in a greater context. National

identity has been minimally explored in relation to college students, especially by

considering the motivations of the program or nation-state. However, a few studies use

national identity as a lens through which to view college student development.

For example, in a longitudinal study of Latino college students, scholars

investigated the relationship between national identity and perceived discrimination in

that particular student population (Fuller-Rowell et. al, 2013). In this case, students were evaluated quantitatively about their American national identity, their particular ethnic identity, and the discrimination they perceived to encounter because of their ethnic identity in an American context (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2013). The study considers national identity and perceived identity as predictors of changes in commitment to their Latino identity.

The study found that at low levels of national identity, perceived discrimination is

positively associated with ethnic identity commitment. On the other hand, at high levels

of national identity, researchers observed the opposite: higher levels of perceived

discrimination were associated with less positive increases in ethnic identity commitment

(Fuller-Rowell et al., 2013). While this study quantitatively investigates the relationship

between students and their American national identity, the researchers do not focus on

national identity development, but rather, development or changes in commitment to

ethnic identity. Furthermore, the study is limited because the students who participated

22 developed their national identities within the context of the United States and/or their own cultural heritage, not within a foreign national context.

One study in particular (Dolby, 2004) explored the intersection of national identity and college students. The narrative study analyzed data provided by college students as they reflected on their study abroad experiences in Australia with regard to the development of their national identity. Dolby (2004) found that for most of the students, especially the students who had never been outside of the United States, their national identity as Americans was a passive fact until they studied abroad in Australia.

Because the perception of Americans among the Australian population was largely negative at the time, in the year following the September 11th attacks, the students felt a surge of patriotism and a need to defend the United States when Australian nationals offered criticisms of either the U.S. government or American cultural values.

Students’ interactions with Australian national citizens brought them to an understanding that the American national identity was not only imagined and constructed by Americans within the territorial context, but also outside of the United States. In fact, many people worldwide have a voice in producing the American national identity, even when American nationals do not have the opportunity to contribute to that production

(Dolby, 2004). While Dolby’s study contributed to the greater understanding of how national identity interacts with college students’ development, more exploration can be done with regard to the motivation of the home country in international exchange.

This concept, the intersection of national identity and college students, provides an example of how a student’s context influences identity development. The importance

of this intersection can be found by expanding the scope beyond simply national identity

development. Instead, by placing the development of college students’ national identities

within the larger conversation of international education, I will clarify the potential gains

that governments can make by investing in development students’ national identities on

their terms. A discussion of cultural diplomacy and soft power will allow for a more

complex understanding of college students’ role in national identity.

Cultural Diplomacy and Soft Power

Alongside the massive military strength and hard power that represents The

United States to the rest of the world, the U.S. government also invests in soft power and cultural diplomacy initiatives by creating educational and cultural programs to develop the intellectual and creative talents of Americans. The goal of cultural diplomacy is to utilize America’s talented people to improve the relationships with nations abroad through various intellectual and cultural sharing efforts (Schneider, 2009). One of the most prestigious of these programs is the U.S. Fulbright Student program situated within the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (Bureau of

Education and Cultural Affairs, 2016).

While public diplomacy is the broader practice of influencing public opinion of other nations, cultural diplomacy specifically is less concerned with policies and instead functions as a relationship-building strategy between two parties (Schneider, 2009).

Cultural diplomacy and soft power are related because, although cultural diplomacy aims

to be mutual, it still has a tangible influence on the way people outside of the U.S. view

American culture, as is the goal of soft power. For this analysis, it is pertinent to

24 understand some cultural diplomacy strategies that the United States has employed historically in order to understand the context.

Soft power is the idea that governments can assert power using influence and attraction rather than physical military force or coercion. Soft power takes into account that technology, education and economic growth are growing in importance while geography, population and raw materials are not necessarily as important as they once were in influencing nations (Nye, 1990). Soft power asserts that legitimacy drives influence; in other words, the attractiveness of culture and ideology of a nation are closely related to how willing other states will be to follow its wishes or demands.

Furthermore, it suggests that the United States should utilize soft power in order to remain a lead in the new domains of transnational interdependence because of its ideological resources (Nye, 1990).

In the larger-scale example of music as cultural diplomacy, which the U.S. government invested in heavily beginning in 1954 during the start of the Cold War, thousands of musicians including Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington traveled abroad to perform. These tours were meant to compete with Soviet and Chinese performers who were similarly performing worldwide and to make positive impressions of America and its foreign policy around the world (Fossler-Lussier, 2012). When Duke Ellington demanded that a public audience be allowed into his private performance in Moscow,

Soviet citizens saw Ellington portraying American representations of equality and access

(Schneider, 2009). Ellington’s actions influenced public opinion of American values.

This example cultural diplomacy is only one example of how the United States has

historically exerted soft power; this analysis focuses more specifically on educational

means of worldwide influence on behalf of the U.S.

Cultural diplomacy and soft power provide a lens through which to view the

importance of national identity development in college students to the field of higher

education. Programs such as the Fulbright Student Program are a means by which the

United States government can reach their soft power goals. The U.S. Department of State

trains hundreds of America’s most talented college students to become cultural diplomats of behalf of the U.S. government every year through its educational programs, yet the literature does not provide a comprehensive account by any means of the impact these programs have on student’s national identity.

International education. Scholars of higher education and student affairs often

herald the benefits of study abroad on student retention, intercultural competence, and

ability to reach career outcomes (Daly & Barker, 2005; Dolby, 2004; Hira, 2003;

Mapesela et al., 2003). Furthermore, some studies show an increase in nationalism and

reflection upon national identities as United States citizen upon their return to the United

States, an experience sometimes referred to as “encountering an American self” (Dolby,

2004, p. 150; Gieser, 2015). However, little research has been done on the national identity development of students who participate in international exchange programs that are developed and funded by the United States government. This study explores the experiences of students who participate in such programs as they reflect upon their own

American selves.

In a 2003 article about “the brave new world of international education,”

international education is considered through the lens of economy and commodification

(Hira, 2003). Like other traditionally government-based industries, education is “fast

becoming a global business” (Hira, 2003, p. 37), and companies and universities have

developed strategies to situate themselves within the market share for international

exchange programs rapidly as the demand for globally informed and experienced

students increased, as well as the demand for globally shared knowledge as a commodity.

In fact, market for international education has greatly increased with the

technological age, requiring greater regulation than ever before (Hira, 2003).

International education, once dominated by universities and the government in trademark

programs like the Fulbright Program is now an exploding market; students can get

international education experience in a wide variety of contexts. The greater scope of the newly expanding private market for international education allows for consideration of government-funded programs like the Fulbright Program, which has engaged students for over four decades. In other words, the identity of the Fulbright Program is changing as the global market changes, and the way the U.S. government utilizes the program as a tool will also be in flux.

In order to understand the Fulbright program’s relationship with students’ national

identity development, it is useful to consider why students are academically mobile on a

global scale. Students who pursue such programs do not exist in a vacuum – their

motivations to be internationally academically mobile reflect the global trends (Fulbright,

2016). Students worldwide choose to study internationally for a variety of reasons. Some

scholars consider these reasons from two perspectives: “push” and “pull” (Dolby, 2004;

Perkins & Neumayer, 2014; Perna, Orosz, Jumakulov, Kishkentaeva, & Ashirbekov,

2015). For example, students are often interested in, or “pushed into,” studying

internationally if they perceive the quality of the education at home is insufficient or if

they perceive the experiences as improving employability. Students worldwide are often

influenced by international ranking systems, many of which praise universities in the

United States and the United Kingdom for their high-quality educations that may exceed

the quality of the education in a student’s home country.

On the other hand, students are “pulled” to study internationally in order to

participate in high-quality or specialized education options, to learn a language, or to acquire internationally recognized credentials (Perna et al., 2015). For example, human capital theory suggests that individuals’ behaviors and decisions are related to their knowledge, skills, experiences, and training that they have to contribute to the work force; therefore, situated within human capital theory, student mobility across national

borders can be seen as a function of relative costs and benefits of the individual who

resides in a specific nation (Perkins & Neumayer, 2014). From this perspective, foreign

education might satisfy student goals of obtaining a higher-paying or more interesting job

by providing skills that the student could not obtain domestically or through their current

educational institution.

Government-sponsored international programs. When American university

students participate in government-sponsored international exchange programs, not only

are they expected to engage in reflection and personal growth as in their traditional study

abroad counterparts (Gieser, 2015), but they are also responsible for representing the

United States government during their time abroad because of the programs’ culturally

diplomatic nature (Schneider, 2009). Since there is a strong correlation between foreign

nations who have a high volume of international students from Western countries and

level of democracy (Spilimbergo, 2009), these governments value the investments that

they hold in this type of international exchange.

Utilizing students on behalf of U.S. foreign affairs strategy is not a new practice; in fact, for the past fifty years, the U.S. and other Western powers have been employing international exchange programs as a way to promote democracy (Spilimbergo, 2009).

The responsibility to represent the United States as a cultural diplomat is reinforced to the students through specific programming within U.S. Department of State-developed orientation programs and through expectations in the program contracts (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). While the international exchange programs such as Fulbright U.S. Student

Program and the Critical Language Scholarship have curricular similarities to traditional study abroad options, they have the additional layer of the foreign affairs agenda to consider in terms of student learning and experience.

Perna et al. (2015), in a study that specifically explores student motivations in participating in international exchanges sponsored by national governments, found that students are more likely to participate if they perceive the benefits to exceed the costs.

These costs are not necessarily monetary if the program is already funded, but can include time taken out of the academic program or the difficulties faced by being in a new and challenging environment. The perceived benefits are typically related to employability and quality of education.

Furthermore, the study also found that opportunity was a significant factor in

student motivation to participate. In one case explored by the Perna et al. (2015) study,

Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Program began as an international exchange program but was

only available for students who were highly connected politically. While the program has

since changed to a merit- based program with a rigorous application process, the program still invites a high population of affluent students to participate, a trend that is also represented in U.S. international exchange programs (Perna & Steele, as cited in Perna et al., 2015). These findings illustrate larger issues to consider within international higher education – for example, although the programs have sought a diverse student population, the rigorous application process reveal inequities in the education system as a whole, providing who has access to gain these cultural competencies that make students more employable.

Another example to consider is the Peace Corps. While the Peace Corps is not inherently related to higher education, it serves a similar purpose to the Fulbright U.S.

Student program in terms of cultural diplomacy purposes. A government agency whose mission is to provide aid and enhance international understanding, the Peace Corp employs U.S. Citizens who are qualified to work in various sectors, such as agriculture, community economic development, environment, health, youth in development, and education (Peace Corps, 2016). Some scholars argue that the Peace Corp contributes significantly and uniquely to national security, even describing it as a security bargain

(Feldman, 2013; Hedrick, 2013). From this perspective, the Peace Corps is an agent of cultural diplomacy that allows the U.S. to apply soft power in various regions of the

30 world.

In recent years, the Peace Corps has restructured its approach to recruiting and training volunteers to make the program more accessible to millennials, utilizing technology and a team approach to volunteering (Hedrick, 2013). Feldman (2013) asserts that the Peace Corps’ contribution is beyond goodwill to foreign nations, but rather, the program allows for international development which prevents potential conflicts. The program also allows for thousands of Americans to return to their home country with a renewed international perspective, providing the American workforce with people knowledgeable about sustainable agricultural and educational practices worldwide.

Advocates for the Peace Corps argue that because the program is integral to national security without using military force, the government should further invest in this cultural diplomacy effort (Feldman, 2013; Hedrick, 2013; Manser, Naughton, Orner, Prouty,

Verbyla, & Mihelcic, 2015).

Exploring these programs through research will allow for a more complex understanding of a powerful aspect of international education that is tied to implications much larger than an at the institutional level. There are significant gaps in the research surrounding international education programs sponsored by governments, especially as they relate to the impact of those experiences on students, aside from the programs own evaluations. This exploration can offer further insight into what impact these long- standing prestigious and highly-respected programs are having on some of America’s most high-achieving university students.

What is the Fulbright program? The Fulbright Program, as a long-standing government-sponsored international educational exchange program, is uniquely situated among a larger conversation in higher education of the effects of international education on students’ perceptions of themselves and other cultures wholly. With an increasing focus on globalization on college campuses and by employers (Daly & Barker, 2005), an increased focus on understanding the effects of studying abroad on students and universities in general creates a context for the climate of international education in which the Fulbright Program exists today. The Fulbright Program, is the U.S. Department of State’s flagship international educational exchange program. It is the United States’ largest student exchange program, having served 325,400 students since it began in the

1960’s (Fulbright, 2016).

The Fulbright Program’s goal is to promote mutual understanding, utilizing several different approaches, such as visiting scholars, English teaching assistants abroad, and research or study grants for U.S. students (Fulbright, 2016). There are two most common grants available for U.S. students: the Open Study/Research Awards, in which a student designs a proposal to work with a specific professor at a university abroad on a specific research topic, and the English Teaching Assistantship program, in which a student in placed in a school or university as an English Teaching Assistant in a foreign nation. In 2015, 800 students were awarded Open Study/Research Awards and 981 students were awards English Teaching Assistantships – all fully-funded in partnership with the U.S. government and the host country, and all awarded to U.S. citizens

(Fulbright, 2016).

Throughout its history, the Fulbright program has facilitated hundreds of

thousands of positive interactions between the U.S. and other nations through the funding

of various educational projects and exchanges by domestic and international university

students, supporting international educational exchange as an effective strategy for

greater goals of diplomacy and mutual understanding. Post- World War II, when the

United States government became inextricably involved in foreign affairs and its markets entangled in foreign trade, universities followed suit.

In fact, the Fulbright Program and its other cultural exchange counterparts were significantly valued under the Obama administration, shown by an executive order to provide appointments for alumni of these programs into the competitive service. The order reads,

The Federal Government benefits from a workforce that can be recruited from the broadest and deepest pools of qualified candidates for our highly competitive, merit-based positions… Participants in these programs develop advanced- to superior-level skills in languages and cultural competence in regions that are strategically, diplomatically, and economically important to the United States. It is in the interest of the Federal Government to retain the services of these highly skilled individuals, particularly given that the Federal Government aided them in the acquisition of their skills (Exec. Order 13750, 2016). Such commitment to Fulbright Program through employment of its alumni shows the

significant value placed upon cultural diplomacy by the Federal government. In times of

need for the U.S. government, cultural diplomats recruited from the brightest of

American college students greatly impacts the success of diplomacy efforts overall

according to this executive order.

The Fulbright Program is situated within both the greater context of the U.S.

government alongside its long history of diplomacy with other nations and higher

education among a proliferation of international education programs. With 1,600 U.S.

students and 1,200 U.S. scholars participating in the Fulbright program each year, the

investment by the U.S. government in international exchange makes a noticeable impact

on international relationships between the U.S. and other nations (U.S. Department of

State, n.d.; Rupp, 1999). The program must navigate a complex web of foreign affairs

considerations, impact on students and their growth as global citizens, and relationships

between actors and institutions. History, program statistics, and student experience are

manners in which to examine the effectiveness of the Fulbright program compared to its

original mission and goals about student growth as global citizens.

Perceptions of the Fulbright program. J. William Fulbright Foreign

Scholarship Board’s most recent annual report (2011-2012) explains that Fulbright’s purpose at the inception of the program was based on the conviction that educational and cultural exchange were critical for peace, freedom and international cooperation to progress. In fact, the board describes Fulbright as an instrument of peace that has the ability to humanize and change lives; it says the program addresses both U.S. priorities and global concerns, characterizing Fulbright as an enriching and diverse example of the

U.S. model of cost-sharing and as having an extraordinary impact on the world.

The language expressed in this annual report demonstrates the value the U.S.

Department of State places on international educational exchange. This long-standing program has been a soft power strategy in the form of public cultural diplomacy for over forty years, and the scholarship board views its impact as remarkable, not because of the impact on students, but rather the impact on world peace and global concerns.

According to the Foreign Scholarship Board’s annual report, in fiscal year 2011,

3,406 Americans studied abroad using the Fulbright scholarship, and 4,865 visiting

scholars and students studied in the U.S. A variety of nations made significant

contributions to the Fulbright program, such as Germany yielding the most Fulbrighters

at 550, both U.S. and visiting, while Chile contributed the most money at $10 million

dollars with the most visiting students in the U.S. at 287. The destinations to which U.S.

Fulbrighters are awarded scholarships mirrors the destinations for study abroad for U.S.

students as a whole (NAFSA, 2015); the continent with the most students is Europe at

thirty-five percent, and with the least is Africa at five percent (J. William Fulbright

Foreign Scholarship Board, 2012).

These statistics create a context in which to understand the impact of the Fulbright

Program in recent years. They imply strong relationships between the U.S. and other

nations. Germany, for example, engages the most students and scholars in the program,

implying that their human capital can benefit from U.S. ideas and knowledge and vice

versa. Chile’s large monetary contribution has a similar implication that their nation will

grow because of the shared knowledge created by the Fulbright Program.

Considering the relationships that exist between the U.S. and other nations can

contextualize the investment in the Fulbright program, as the program is one of many

public diplomacy strategies that function alongside traditional diplomacy. For example,

in a larger foreign policy context, Chile and the U.S. have notably attempted to forge

stronger bonds in recent years. On June 30th, 2014, Chilean president Michele Bachelet visited the White House to negotiate some collaborations surrounding the Trans-Pacific

Partnership Trade agreement (Keane, 2014).

As a South American nation with an expanding and stable economy, Chile has

much to gain from a strong relationship with the U.S. government. Its large 2011

investment in the Fulbright Program, which was $3 million dollars more than the next

largest donor Spain (J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, 2012),

demonstrates not only its commitment to sharing knowledge, but also speaks to the

relationship it seeks with the U.S. on a trade and foreign policy level.

Not only are the international partners of the Fulbright program continuing to invest their students, scholars, and money into the program, but the U.S. has also implied that the value of international education to greater foreign policy initiatives is increasing.

Under President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year, the Bureau of

Cultural and Educational Affairs in the U.S. Department of State would receive a 1.6 percent increase. Considering that the Fulbright program is the State Department’s flagship program with the largest measurable impact on student learning (J. William

Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, 2012), advocates of the Fulbright program hopes that this budget increase would allow the program to grow (Wilhelm, 2014).

However, the Fulbright program would receive a thirteen percent budget cut in order to accommodate the Young African Leaders Initiative, a program that allows

African students to study business, leadership, and public management at U.S. institutions of higher education and the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative whose goals are similar (Wilhelm, 2014). This change in budget and strategy introduces conversations surrounding the relevance of the Fulbright program in today’s international

educational climate when new approaches to public diplomacy through education have

the opportunity to uniquely promote peace and mutual understanding. If the U.S. values

new programs such as the Young African Leaders Initiative and the Young Southeast

Asian Leaders Initiative and views them as innovative, the Fulbright Program must reevaluate its relevancy in the context of international educational exchange.

However, the advocates of the Fulbright Program actively prevented the $30 million dollar budget cut by reminding the United States of its past impacts. When the

Obama administration proposed the budget cut, alumni of the program organized and created Save Fulbright, a petition to stop cut and restore Fulbright’s budget. In a list of ten reasons to restore its budget, Save Fulbright (2014) claims that Fulbright not only had a role in making the U.S. the world’s leading destination for international exchange programs, but that it was instrumental in doing so.

The Fulbright Program has made a significant impact in the world since its inception and has the potential to continue its impact if it has the ability to compete with the new climate of international higher education. The prestige of the Fulbright program as the United States’ flagship international educational exchange program is not enough to maintain relevancy during a proliferation of marketization of international higher education programs. In the wake of a new Donald Trump administration, questions have arisen from past Fulbright scholars about the future of the program that has served both thousands of students and the U.S. government in positive ways.

In a letter signed by over 1,500 Fulbright scholars regarding the election of

Donald Trump, past Fulbright scholars wrote,

We support the Fulbright Program’s aims “to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.” If the president-elect’s stated promise to cancel J-1 visa programs is successful, the future of the Fulbright Program and related programs will be jeopardized (Tubosun, Dihn, & Downs, 2016).

The future of the Fulbright may be fluid, but its past impact still must be investigated. As an immense example of cultural diplomacy that influences the function of both higher education and international relations worldwide, an examination of the Fulbright program and its interaction with students and national identity will provide greater perspective on a complex system that not only leaves an impact on students, but leaves a global impact as well.

Summary

The primary gap in the literature surrounding national identity and cultural diplomacy in higher education is the lack of exploration if the intersection of the two concepts. With the proliferation of international exchange programs, looking to the

United States’ flagship academic mobility program that has reached hundreds of thousands of students since its inception may illuminate the ways in which students perceive their own national identities when faced with the new role of acting as a cultural diplomat for their own nation while also being a college student.

The nation, which has a significant vested interest in how future generations perceive themselves as nationals, can only act in a way that supports their legitimate national interests (Nye, 1990). Gaining understanding of how these behaviors of the nation impacts people at an individual level can give student affairs professionals more agency in helping students make meaning of their experiences in international exchange. 38

This study may also inform the government agencies that develop such programs when considering the outcomes of the students who participate in them.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Strong qualitative research requires significant reflection upon the purpose and research questions, rather than fostering inspiration from a methodology (Jones, Torres,

& Arminio, 2014). This idea means that a researcher must create a research design that is inspired by the knowledge that she wishes to discover or create. In this chapter I outline how the purpose of this study informs the epistemological perspective, methodology, methods, and data analysis techniques used. Essentially, the methodology and epistemological framework of the study allow me to seek the answers to my questions alongside the participants who permit access to their experiences to me as a researcher.

Purpose and Guiding Research Questions

The purpose of this constructivist narrative inquiry is to understand the national identity development of students who participate in U.S. government international education programs. With 1,600 U.S. students and 1,200 U.S. scholars participating in the Fulbright program each year, the investment by the U.S. government in international exchange makes a noticeable impact on international relationships between the U.S. and other nations (U.S. Department of State, n.d.; Rupp, 1999). The literature shows that governments have a vested interest in exchange programs for their own diplomatic or coercive purposes; in order to better understand how higher education and the student experience intersects with government and cultural diplomacy, I focused specifically

40 upon the student experience within these programs.

Because the goals of the government are not solely educational in implementing these programs, this study serves primarily as an exploration into how students understand their own identities as American citizens after participation. The following research questions may contribute to the field of international higher education because they explore the student experience in relation to international and governmental relations. Engaging in a narrative study provided insight into the impact that these programs on students who participate in them in terms of meaning-making and identity development.

The questions that guide the study are focus upon identity development and experiences. In particular, I aimed to better understand:

• How does national identity become salient in the context of Fulbright?

• As Fulbright scholars, what meaning are the participants making of their

experience?

• In what ways do cultural diplomacy and national identity interact for the

participants?

Analyzing the student experience by co-creating their stories with them allowed me to discover new knowledge about national identity development. I contend that through this type of constructivist narrative analysis, scholars can begin to understand how students experience their own national identities they encounter them in a new way within the large and complex systems of national identity and cultural diplomacy.

Positionality Statement

Because research represents a “shared space” between the researcher and the participants of the research, the identities of both groups impacts the knowledge that is created throughout the process (Mertens, 2005). As an alumna of the Critical Language

Scholarship program in Indonesia in 2014, I am in a unique position as the researcher because I identify as a student who participated in a U.S. government exchange program.

I also identify as a mixed-race young Thai-American woman, which contributed to the way I reflected upon my own experiences in the program.

While the Critical Language Scholarship and the Fulbright program have similar missions and values, the structures of the two programs are quite different, which allowed for some separation in the bias I may have when interpreting the data I receive from the participants of this study. I also was undergoing the process of applying for a Fulbright scholarship while conducting this research. While this process could have influenced the way that I interacted with the participants, I remained as objective as possible and did not share that information with them during our interviews.

Berger (2015) argues that, while reflexivity is a crucial strategy of generating knowledge in qualitative research, whether or not the researcher is a member of the researched population affects that reflexivity. While my identity as an alumna of a government-sponsored international exchange program makes me particularly invested in understanding the experiences of students with this background, it also creates the possibility for significant researcher bias. In order to create the most separation possible,

I worked with participants of various social identities. Furthermore, while my position

42 within the research as both a student with a similar experience and as a researcher may limit me in some ways, it also help connect me with participants and to opportunities for data collection.

Epistemological Assumptions: Constructivism

Epistemology refers to the assumptions a researcher makes about the acquisition of knowledge (Jones et al., 2014). The epistemological assumptions a researcher makes when designing the study provide a theoretical lens through which to view the design of the study and analysis of the data. This study uses constructivism as a theoretical lens through which to create and understand the experiences as described by the participants.

In constructivism, the researcher seeks to understand individual social action through interpretation and translation, focusing in particular on human experience (Jones et al.,

2014). In practice, this perspective calls for open-ended questions that allow for participants to expand upon their experiences and co-construct knowledge alongside the researcher (Creswell, 2013).

In other words, when creating a research study while utilizing a constructivist theoretical perspective, a researcher does not assume anything about social identity or life history that the participant does not supply through interviews or other data sources.

Through this assumption, the participant become a co-creator of the knowledge that the study produces (Jones et al., 2014). The researcher’s position within the study is also important to consider within a constructivist lens, especially because they relationship between the researcher and the participant allows for the production of knowledge through the constructivist lens (Creswell, 2013).

These assumptions are consistent with the purpose of this research study because the goal of the study is to better understand students’ experiences with U.S. government- sponsored international exchange. Through the retelling and reflection upon these experiences, I as the researcher and the participants of the study work alongside one another to create this understanding, since a constructivist assumes that the researcher seeks to understand the individual. Because the constructivist lens guides the researcher to focus on experiences as told by the participant, the guiding research questions consider both which experiences are most meaningful to participants and how they made meaning of those particular experiences.

Methodology: Narrative Inquiry

Methodology is a strategy that guides a qualitative research study, and provides direction for how the study will proceed (Jones et al., 2014). This study employs a narrative inquiry methodology, which focuses on the stories of individuals and how their experiences shed light on their identities and their meaning-making of these stories and experiences (Creswell, 2013). In a narrative study, the researcher uses many different forms of data to inform their research, often analyzes that data thematically, and pays particular attention to the context or chooses a set of parameters that is context-specific

(Creswell, 2013). These characteristics of narrative study allow for the researcher to illuminate the stories of the participants through gathering and illustrating themes that appear throughout the data analysis process.

Although narrative inquiry is a strong way to illustrate the stories of people based on their experiences, this methodology can also be a challenging approach to qualitative

44 research because the researcher must collect extensive data in order to begin to understand a participants’ life stories (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, some critics of narrative inquiry say that focusing on only one or two participants can affect the utility of the study in that it is not particularly generalizable (Jones et al., 2014). A researcher must consider these challenges when choosing to utilize a narrative study to guide their research design.

However, a major strength of narrative inquiry is the collaboration with participants; in narrative inquiry, both the researcher and the participants learn from the encounter, and the participants have agency in the research through the representation of their own life stories, what they are willing to share, and how they negotiate their relationship to the researcher (Creswell, 2013). This strength of narrative inquiry draws me to the methodology as I consider how to approach the study; in particular, when reflecting upon what I value learning through research, I realize that the collaboration of participants in creating the research is important to me when creating new knowledge.

I use narrative inquiry to guide the study because I seek to understand the experiences of individuals who participated in government international exchange programs, especially as those experiences relate to the development of their national identity as United States citizens. By using narrative inquiry to guide my study design, I was able to appropriately structure my data collection such as interview and observation techniques. Because I am particularly interested in identity, narrative inquiry guided my focus on the identity development of two participants who are intimately acquainted with the experience that I aim to understand through qualitative research.

Inclusion Criteria

In order to be included in the study, participants must have participated in the

Fulbright U.S. Student program within the last five years and must be United States citizens. Students who are Fulbright scholars are required to be U.S. citizens to be eligible for the program and this study focuses on American identity development.

Participants were accepted regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, ability, or socioeconomic status. They must have participated in the program within the last five years because I am using social media as a data source – five years allowed the sources to be as consistent as possible in the context of social media, which develops rapidly.

National identity broadly also changes over time (Gutiérrez, 2001), therefore sources within five years had greater consistency in America’s broad national identity than sources from various time periods.

Data Collection

I conducted semi-structured interviews with five participants. I chose to limit the study to five participants because a narrative inquiry requires rich data collection from each participant in order to create a developed narrative – five participants facilitated this rich data collection within the scope of the study. I found five participants by sending emails through the Office of Fellowships at the university, where I found two participants. I used snowball sampling to find the other three participants by using contacts of the first two participants to respond. These interviews lasted for one hour and occurred two times for each participant. The interviews were comprised of open-ended questions pertaining to both the students’ experiences during the program and their

national identity as they reflect on those experiences today. The first interview focused on

their experiences broadly, and the second included questions that focus more specifically

on their social media posts (see appendices D and E).

I also collected data from a variety of sources, including observation, interviews,

and gathering Fulbright student program marketing materials. In terms of observations, I

attended a Fulbright information session and an international exchange alumni event,

both of which were organized through the Office of Undergraduate Fellowships. I used

two recruitment strategies – internet flyers posted on Instagram and Facebook, and via email (see appendices A and B). I obtained the marketing materials through research posted on the website and through e-mail correspondences with employees of the U.S.

Department of State.

Constructivism as a lens facilitates the co-construction of knowledge between the researcher and participant; by placing focus on their experiences through semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions that prompt reflection, the data collection strategies of this study are consistent with the constructivist theoretical lens. In a narrative inquiry, researchers should collect extensive data in order to obtain the most comprehensive understanding possible about the participants’ life stories and experiences (Creswell,

2013).

I expanded my data collection strategies by focusing more on the students’ experiences as they occurred through social media and journal reflection during their experiences abroad. I requested access to these materials that they created while abroad after the first interview. More specifically, I asked social media-directed questions in the

second interview as a way to further collect data related to national identity (see

appendix. Participation in the study was not contingent on whether or not the participants elected to provide, access to their social media and journals (see appendix C); four participants were willing to share this information, while one did not participate in social media or journaling during the Fulbright grant period. That participant chose to share articles from a college newspaper instead. These steps exposed me to a more extensive understanding of participants as a whole and to more easily compare the data because of the similarity in experiences.

Participant Profiles

Through the recruitment strategies I have outlined, I was able to reach five participants with varying identities. All of the participants served as English Teaching

Assistants during their time in the Fulbright program and met the inclusion criteria of being a United States citizen, but they have varying gender, racial, and ethnic identities; they also had varied Fulbright sites. All names are pseudonyms chosen by the participants. Below is a table of some key demographics of the five participants of the study. These demographics in particular provide some basic context for the diversity of participants across Fulbright sites, areas of study, race/ethnicity, and gender.

Name Fulbright Undergraduate Race/Ethnicity Gender Site Major(s) Michelle Port International Black Woman Elizabeth, Development (identifies as South Africa Nigerian- American) Sam Vsetin, English White Man Czech (identifies as Republic having Czech heritage) Jazmine Hamburg, German White Woman Germany Studies, Art History Spencer Hamburg, German White Man Germany Frances Gorontalo, International White Woman Indonesia Development, Middle East Studies Table 1: Participant Profiles

Following this table are profiles on all of the participants that provide background of their

experiences and the way they self-identify. These profiles allow the reader to better comprehend the narratives that follow in chapter 4. Each participant’s profile includes information about the program they pursued, how they decided to pursue that program, basic information about their experience abroad, and their current career goals.

Michelle. Michelle was a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant in Port Elizabeth,

South Africa in 2016. She identifies as a Nigerian-American woman and holds U.S. citizenship. Michelle is passionate about youth development and leadership and plans to pursue an academic program in the cultural foundations of education. Her previous experience studying abroad in South Africa and her interests in youth development 49 inspired her to apply for a Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship in South Africa.

During her time in South Africa, Michelle not only assisted English teachers in a high school classroom, but she also developed cocurricular programs for her students in South

Africa such as implementing an art club where students could use art as a form of self- expression and social commentary.

The Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship program attracted Michelle because of her broad interests:

“Coming out of undergrad I knew that…. I didn’t want to go to grad school immediately, so the Fulbright was a nice gap year sort of thing. I think also… I don’t really know what

I expected. I think maybe I thought I would go in and have this epiphany and come out and be like ‘I know what I want to do with my life now,’ sort of thing.”

Her experiences as an international development major and a previous study abroad experience as an undergraduate student were two important experiences that motivated her pursuit of an Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship in South Africa. When she set out to complete a year in South Africa, she hoped to use day-to-day interactions to learn more about South Africa culture, as well as test her personal ability to be adaptable and take initiative in the classroom.

Sam. Sam completed his undergraduate and master’s degrees in English before pursuing a Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship in 2014 in Vsetin, Czech Republic, a small village in the east of the country. Sam decided to apply for the Fulbright English

Assistantship because he had a passion for writing that he wanted to pursue away from the influence of friends and family; he also loved English literature and he wanted to

50 share that with children abroad. Pursuing an English Teaching Assistantship allowed Sam to gain experience in teaching, which he wanted to learn more about as a profession. He chose to apply for the Czech Republic specifically because of his Czech heritage.

During his time in Vsetin, Sam taught at a school focused on engineering in which the students were on track to enter the workforce rather than pursue higher education. Because of the vocational focus of the school, Sam’s responsibilities were focused on conversational and cultural aspects of English. After completing his year in

Vsetin, Sam became a high school English teacher and plans to pursue a law degree in the near future.

Jazmine. Jazmine was an English Teaching Assistant in Hamburg, Germany.

After completing a year-long study abroad program in Germany and studying German at a small liberal arts college on the east coast, a German professor of Jazmine’s encouraged her to apply for the Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship in Germany. Her year-long study abroad experience was particularly isolating, so she wanted to live in Germany again with a more open and receptive mindset. As a Fulbright scholar, Jazmine aimed to continue interacting with children as she had as a swim teacher,

Jazmine was placed in Hamburg, Germany in a primary school, working with small children in a school in an affluent neighborhood. Her responsibilities primarily included assisting English teachers with classroom management and providing a perspective of American culture in the classroom. Since completing the Fulbright English

Teaching Assistantship, and after working in college admissions in various university settings, Jazmine is currently pursuing a Master of Social Work degree.

Spencer. Spencer had been to Germany several times since participating in an

exchange program in high school including study abroad programs during his time as an

undergraduate student ast a small liberal arts college in the Midwest. He fell in love with the language and culture of Germany. When an advisor encouraged Spencer to apply for the Fulbright program, he knew only of the research grants and felt that he would not have been a good fit for the program; however, when he began to research the mission

and values of the English Teaching Assistantship program, he decided that it aligned

closely with his personal values and professional abilities. As a recent college graduate

with a passion for German language and culture who was interested in pursuing teaching

English as a career, Spencer felt that pursuing the Fulbright ETA would be a great fit.

Working in a primary school in Hamburg, Germany, Spencer was able to make

strong connections with colleagues in education and gain a greater understanding of his

inclination toward pedagogy and education as a career. By developing professional

experience in Germany, Spencer was inspired to earn his teaching certificate upon his

return to the United States and has since been an English as a Second Language teacher at

a middle school.

Frances. After studying international relations as an undergraduate student,

Frances was Fulbright English Teaching Assistant in 2015 in Gorontalo, a small city on

the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia. She identifies as a white woman born and raised in

the Midwest. She currently works as an administrative assistant at an education non-

profit organization; in fact, France’s experience as a Fulbright ETA led her to pursue a

career in education, a change from her goals to work in international relations before she

pursued the assistantship.

Through her study abroad experience in Jordan during her undergraduate career,

Frances became passionate about facilitating relationships between traditionally Muslim-

focused cultures and her own Western culture. Because Indonesia has the largest

population of Muslim people in the world, in addition to being a Muslim majority

country, Frances chose to apply to a Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship there.

During her time in Indonesia, Frances worked at a Muslim primary school and

implemented an English language library that is still at the school today.

Data Analysis

Narrative studies must be analyzed by seeking the story within the data, through a

chronology, turning points, or epiphanies (Creswell, 2013). To analyze the data, I initially

took notes on my observations and organized those notes in a way that set a scene for the

analysis of the interviews. Then, I coded the interviews and organized the data into

chronological themes, using the three-dimensional space approach as a guide; in other words, when organizing the data, I will look for three elements: interaction (personal and social), continuity (past, present, and future), and situation (physical places or the storyteller’s places) (Creswell, 2013; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Below is a table adapted from Clandinin & Connelly, who introduced the three-dimensional space approach; I utilized this table to organize the coded data to develop the narrative that follows in chapter 4:

Three-Dimensional Space Narrative Structure

Interaction: Personal and Continuity: Past, Present, Physical Places or Social and Future Storyteller’s Places • Retellings of • Stories that depict • Physical spaces that interactions with change over time were significant to members of host • Stories that a participant’s country describe meaning-making or • Retellings of comparative aspects experience interactions with of experience • Imagined spaces friend and family in throughout time that were important U.S. to a participant’s • Retellings of meaning-making or internal experience monologues Table 2: Three-Dimensional Space Narrative Structure; Adapted from Clandinin & Connelly, 2000

Through this method of analysis, I found themes that appeared in each individual participants’ stories, took note of where they overlapped with the other participants’ stories and place them in a chronological order to create a narrative of their experiences.

These analysis strategies are common in narrative analysis because they allow for the data to illuminate the stories of the participants’ lives.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness in qualitative research ensures that a study is not significantly colored by the bias of the researcher (Mertens, 2005). The trustworthiness of the findings was ensured using several different methods. First, I invoked a triangulation process by collecting multiple forms of data (interviews, blogs, reflective journals, and newspaper articles). Second, I conducted member checks by providing participants with the findings from my preliminary and final analysis and requesting feedback. Together, the

participants and negotiated how to incorporate the feedback into the findings and

discussion section of the study both over the phone and via email.

Third, I maintained awareness of my individual subjectivity as it relates to the

study through research journaling and peer debriefing. By journaling and regularly

debriefing with a peer, I was able to reflect upon my positionality and subjectivity and

correct any clear biases during the research process. Finally, per Mertens’ (2005)

recommendation to maintain “dependability” and “confirmability” audit trails, I kept

extensive notes and records about my process over the course of the study and the steps

in my analysis, allowing me to trace the evolution of the project and the original data

sources that have culminated in the presentation of the findings.

Summary

By using constructivism and a narrative inquiry approach as a guide to building

the study, I was able to create an environment in which the participants and I created

narratives that both speak to the research questions that I sought to answer and

authentically represent the participants’ stories. In this chapter, I aimed to clearly illustrate how I utilized qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to illuminate the answers to the research questions that emerged from the data – primarily through semi-structured interviews of five participants and a three-dimensional space approach to narrative analysis.

Furthermore, I intended to provide a foundation of the participants’ backgrounds in order to set the stage for the rich, thick description that follows in the findings. By developing a profile for each of the participants in this chapter, I was able to illustrate the

humanity of the sample and demonstrate the diverse perspectives represented in the

study. As a constructivist narrative inquiry, the collaboration of the participants and the willingness to share aspects of their character and life experience are critical to the development of the study. The methodology of this qualitative research study provide a structure with which to share the participants’ stories and facilitate a discussion of how the findings impact the field of higher education’s understanding of national identity and cultural diplomacy as a whole.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

In this chapter, I present the findings of the study. Through a constructivist narrative analysis, I utilized the data to develop two distinct narratives that illustrate how the five participants addressed the three research questions that I aimed to answer through this study. These three research questions include:

• How does national identity become salient in the context of Fulbright?

• As Fulbright scholars, what meaning are the participants making of their

experience?

• In what ways do cultural diplomacy and national identity interact for the

participants?

The findings are presented at the level of two individual stories, yet incorporates the collective stories of all five participants. Creswell (2015) suggests that narrative inquiry studies often utilize the stories of one to two narratives to highlight the major findings of the study while incorporating all participants’ experiences throughout those selected narratives. I begin the findings by reintroducing the two highlighted participants,

Michelle and Frances, with their particular narratives following their profiles. Having two narratives representing rather than five allowed me to explore the themes in a deeper way and gave me the ability to illuminate a significant contrast between these two participants, who were both unique in themselves but represented many of the themes 57 that emerged throughout the data.

I chose to highlight Michelle and Frances because their narratives both encapsulated many of the themes found across the data, but also represented stories that lie at different ends of a national identity spectrum. In other words, Michelle had a strong grasp on her perception of her own national identity before pursuing the Fulbright scholarship, while Frances had not reflected heavily on her national identity. Throughout their narratives, however, Michelle and Frances both gained more critical perceptions of their national identity after returning to the United States.

Government-sponsored Americans Abroad: Reflections on National Identity

Each narrative aims to encapsulate the experiences of U.S. Fulbright scholars as they navigated their national identity before, during, and after their experience in the

Fulbright program. I viewed their reflections of national identity through the lens of cultural diplomacy. These narratives are presented in a way that gives the reader the opportunity to understand the participants and their experiences with the Fulbright program and national identity holistically; because of the constructivist nature of the study, the participants and I were able to construct these narratives together.

Michelle: “What do you mean I’m not black?” As described in her participant profile in chapter 3, Michelle is a Nigerian-American woman with a passion for youth leadership development and the cultural foundations of education. She spent a year in

Port Elizabeth, South Africa serving as an American cultural ambassador at a local high school. While in Port Elizabeth, Michelle focused on developing a leadership club and an art club that would provide a space for students to express themselves creatively. The

following narrative illustrates Michelle’s story as she reflected on her Nigerian-American

identity during her time as a Fulbright scholar.

A hyphenated American: Navigating identity in South Africa. Living in Port

Elizabeth, Michelle confronted questions of national identity in new ways; however,

Michelle’s identity as an American has always been an important topic of reflection in her life. As a Nigerian-American, the concept of “being American” was complicated by her relationship with Nigeria and her experience as the daughter of immigrants. In terms of her national identity, Michelle had an intricate relationship with her Americanness before she pursued the Fulbright assistantship:

I feel like I’ve always been American by circumstances, if that makes sense. Not that I’m like “I hate America, I don’t want to live here,” or anything, because I grew up here, you know? So, it’s very much a part of my life story and my experience and my identity, but I guess I’ve never understood… Like I said, I always felt like a hyphenated American, I’ve never understood patriotism, like that… I don’t know the word to use. I never felt one hundred percent American, if that makes sense.

In other words, her American identity was never defined exclusively, but rather, alongside another important national identity - her Nigerian identity. As a representative of the United States, Michelle wondered how she could communicate American culture and identity to her South African community members despite her experience feeling not one hundred percent American. This reflection continued as she interacted with her racial identity in the South African context as well.

Once Michelle went to South Africa, she began to compare her “hyphenated identity” in America with her Nigerian-Americanness within the racial and national conditions of South Africa. Because race is defined differently in South Africa when

compared to the United States, Michelle felt compelled to redefine her own racial identity

that developed in her life growing up in a Midwestern city. Being a black woman and a

Nigerian-American woman became salient in this new context – so salient, in fact, that

she envisioned a “transnational” future that was not committed to one particular nation,

but several:

Race in South Africa is very different from race here, even though a lot of South Africans will say, “Oh, we consider ourselves the unofficial 51st state of the U.S.” Because of their history of Apartheid is so similar, but it's still very different. So you have this very diverse country just like America, but it's also very different because the black people here all speak an array of different languages. Then white is white as in, you can be like British, or Afrikaans. Then you have coloured which is like, if you say coloured here people would be like, what are you talking about? Coloured is a racial identity there that people take pride in.

So, that was something that was interesting but also frustrating for me because like I said, race there is very rigidly defined, so even to be black is to be Zulu, Venda, Tswana or one of the African groups. In my experience as a Nigerian- American, I know being here in America I always struggle with straddling that line - like I am Nigerian, and I am American. It's not neither, it's both. In this context I think in very many ways I would accept the identity black, but being in South Africa and it's like, you're not black. I'm like, “What do you mean I'm not black?” That was a very interesting and frustrating experience for me. So, it was interesting to learn.

Through her relationships with her South African peers and colleagues, she was able to

develop a deeper understanding of her own national and racial identities by having

conversations and interactions related to those identities which had become salient in new ways during her Fulbright experience. While she was “straddling a line” of being both

Nigerian and American while living in America, living in South Africa as a cultural ambassador for the United States created a new line for her to essentially straddle; in other words, Michelle had to balance being a primary representative of the United States in Port Elizabeth while also managing her own evolving perception of her Americanness. 60

For example, Michelle reflected on her role as an American representative by speaking with other black women who faced similar challenges with understanding their identities as black Americans in the South African context. They discussed their feelings as unusual representatives on behalf of the United States, as their stories were not necessarily represented as a typical American story:

I think a couple of other black women who were in the Fulbright program briefly talked about how it's interesting, because in America we do feel kind of on the periphery, but in the context of South Africa you're kind of more forced to identify with that American identity just because of the way you sound. People always ask you "Oh, what is it like in America? In America don't they do this?" My students always did that, like, "isn't it true in America that everyone is rich?" And I'm like how do I explain social injustices in America to you? It is weird being like… in America I'm not… I don't feel like I would be the face that's chosen to be representative of America, but in South Africa I was that American representation so I had to kind of field those questions.

Being confronted with questions about American identity allowed Michelle to represent the United States through her own lens, despite her identity a “hyphenated American.”

For Michelle, social injustices in the United States were a salient aspect of the American identity that she felt compelled to represent, even though she had difficulty translating her thoughts to the South African context.

In Defense of America. However, despite the challenges she faced, Michelle expressed a defensive tone toward her relationship with America, as did all of the participants of this study. Sam, for example, discussed a situation in which he condemned the Czech Republic’s treatment of the Roma population in the face of questions by Czech nationals about the killing of young black men by police. Frances’ narrative will also contribute to this theme through her conversations with students at a Muslim school. In

Michelle’s case, she defended her appreciation for America and its values while also

questioning how the American experience fits within her own life:

I would say that I am so grateful for my experiences here and I do identify with America, but I remember telling my mom “I feel like I have to live a transnational life.” I don't think I could just live here forever or permanently. I think a lot of that just has to do with more of an emotional thing. After I came back from South Africa we went to Nigeria for a bit and it's just like man, I feel my heart ... I have too many emotional investments in too many parts of the world to ever just like be comfortable just staying here forever. So I don't know what that will look like but I feel like I have to live a life where I'm going across borders and traveling a lot.

However, Michelle’s story is unique because her defense of the United States also comes with a variety of critiques that she struggled to share with her students in Port Elizabeth.

Michelle often used her roommate and co-teacher as a reference point for her reflection. They shared some salient identities, such as teacher at the primary school and

Fulbright scholar. They both valued creativity and self-expression in the classroom and utilized their skills to develop those values for their students. Michelle also turned to her roommate for reflecting upon their identity as Fulbright scholars who were funded by the

U.S. government:

Having U.S. citizenship is definitely a privilege, honestly, because I can go somewhere like South Africa without a visa so to speak. I can just get the stamp when you come in and you're allowed in for three months. It's definitely a privilege, something that I appreciate because even some of my cousins in Nigeria, they don't have that privilege when it comes to traveling to other African countries and definitely coming over here. So yeah, I think the U.S. passport holds a lot of weight in international realm.

For the type of work I was doing I know that I would not be paid well [in South Africa]. So my roommate and I were able to live in a comfortable apartment and each get a car and use the school holidays to travel South Africa or go to neighboring countries and things like that. Honestly, we experienced more of South Africa in that aspect than a lot of the other teachers or students have or ever

will just because we had that access to funding. So I feel like that's part of the biggest difference in my experience.

Michelle not only reflected on the privileges that come with having United States

citizenship, but she also thought about how her identities as a black woman in America

informed her relationships with black South African people. Although there are distinct differences between the two identities, Michelle found ways to make connections with her experiences in the United States and South Africa:

Also I think just because I'm not South African I can bring us a different perspective to certain situations. While I can relate to a lot of my students' experiences as- not even a minority, because black people are the majority in South Africa, they're just severely oppressed - I can relate to a lot of their experiences, but I don't really know what it's like to be them, I guess.

But it is telling that in Port Elizabeth the majority of black workers you see are domestic or construction workers, so when I traveled to Johannesburg, it was really refreshing. I was like, “Oh my goodness, there's a black middle class!” I went to this market and it was cool to see black people out having fun and enjoying themselves which I didn't realize I had been missing in Port Elizabeth.

Her access to funding was one of the areas that prompted Michelle to compare her

American identity with the South African identity, despite the many similarities between

the experiences of black people in both nations. Michelle’s reflection on having money as

an American person also spoke to the class identity issues that many of her students

faced. She realized that poverty in South Africa presented itself differently because of

historical and contextual differences, influencing her to take ownership of her own

citizenship and class identity privileges.

This experience was similar to another participant, Jazmine, who reflected on class issues within a different context in Germany; although the school where she worked was in an affluent neighborhood, many of her students were immigrants whose class 63 identities conflicted with their German student counterparts. As a white woman, Jazmine felt empowered to confront bias between students because of her white and American privilege in that context. Essentially, Michelle, alongside several other participants, confronted personal privileges within the unique historical and cultural context of class identity.

Doing life with you: Faith and Fulbright. One aspect of Michelle’s identity that informed the way she understood her experience in South Africa was her Christian faith.

Because her faith is central to her worldview, it influenced the way she made meaning of her experience as a Fulbright scholar. She utilized her particular worldview to combat feeling exhausted by the humanitarian approach that her roommate took toward their work in the high school, for example. Her faith allowed her to feel more grounded and refocus her motivation:

I think my faith is not something that's compartmentalized. Everything that I do and live is filtered through that. I think it just impacted even the way that I sought to relate to my students, or even my perspective as far as my work that I was doing there. I know that one point of contention that my roommate and I had sometimes, like she is very like, I don't know the word to use, but we hit the ground running and alright like, “let's go!” sort of feeling, and “let's do this and let's build this!” and I'm like “Whoa!” you know, and I was kind of like, I want to just see what's going on here, like, “what is this environment and like where can I fit in?” And I think initially, trying to keep up with that like “Let's do something good,” eventually was exhausting. I felt burnt out.

Furthermore, Michelle saw love as a primary motivation for the work that she did in

South Africa with her students at the school. She was able to refocus her motivation from being a humanitarian “hero” to behaving as an extension of her being, an inspiration she found in her faith. By keeping love and faith central to her work, Michelle saw her

commitment to the students at the school as an overflow of herself and the love she felt

rather than a responsibility to serve or represent the United States positively:

I guess where my faith ties in is learning to love my students and do everything that I did from that place of love. I feel like when you're doing things even with good intentions, or from a humanitarian perspective, eventually you'll get burnt out. Because there's only so much you have. But I think when you do things out of love, it's just kind of like an overflow or an extension of who you are and how you feel. So, when my students would ask me to do certain things, like, it wasn't like, I wouldn't mind like bending over backwards to make sure that they had money to get home or bring them food or something like that. Because it's just like, you know I love you, so just kind of doing... I'm just doing life with you. So, I think that was probably one of my biggest takeaways - also, not feeling like you have to be the hero or whatever, but just even being content sowing whatever seed that I can and having faith that other people will come to water that seed and grow it.

Michelle’s faith was a lens through which she made meaning of her experience in South

Africa, just as it is a lens through which she views all aspects of her life. Because she felt pressured from various influences to have a positive impact and be a strong representation of various identities, Michelle depended on her faith to find her own purpose for her work rather than tiring of living up to those expectations; her faith was a salient identity within the context of her Fulbright experience. In her many ambitious endeavors, like painting a mural on the school walls in order to make the students feel more valued, she found strength from her faith perspective to continue despite obstacles.

American and honest about it. Although Michelle found herself defending the

American identity throughout her time in South Africa, she also reflected upon some of the negative aspects of American identity. For example, after visiting a local gallery called “Must Rise” that included adaptations of South African history and identity,

Michelle questioned democracy as an American value, especially as it pertains to a global

development perspective:

Although I was relatively knowledgeable about South African history and current issues, I didn't really feel like it was my place to interject. But it was kind of cool to take in different perspectives and kind of form my own opinion about contemporary South Africa, but yeah, I think it even raises questions. I mean, I wouldn't say that necessarily just South Africa did this, but, in general it raises questions about democracy and you know, it's like “America!” you know, “we're a democracy, we're great, and everyone else should be, too.” And it's kind of like, even in terms of international development, it's almost this linear thing.

Democracy is the goal, but it's like, even in America where we reached democracy, we have a lot of issues. And so, is development linear or is democracy the end goal? It just kind of raised those sorts of questions. It was interesting - it was like I couldn't help but always kind of reflect on certain experiences in South Africa and kind of reflect on America. I think part of that is because I am an American, but also, just, like the similarities between their history and the demographic in South Africa.

By reflecting on her knowledge of South African history, she used the American historical and political climate as a touchstone for comparison. As a United States citizen,

Michelle questioned whether or not democracy is a legitimate goal for all developing nations, particularly when the United States has set an example of an international scale.

After about six months of being in South Africa, tragic events in the United States prompted Michelle’s reflection of America as great country with imperfections. The killing of unarmed black men by police influenced her relationships with the young black boys that she worked with at the school. She took a break from social media for three months, but when she returned, these conversations were at the forefront of her social media sphere. She decided to post on Instagram with a photo of two students looking at each other and laughing, writing the hashtag #blackboyjoy:

Around the time when I got my social media back, I don't think it was too long after that that like certain things, like the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile cases started happening, so it was interesting to kind of reflect on those experiences while not being here. I think that's kind of what gave rise to the post with the two boys, because a lot of my students are like “You know I want to study in the U.S. one day! And I hope that I can go to the U.S., and blah blah blah the U.S.” and I'm like… without ignoring the fact that obviously there are a lot of privileges of being an American, it's also like - it was also like frustrating, like, yeah, you know America is I guess.... not “I guess,” but America is a great country, but we still have a lot of issues. And, you know, my students would just say things like “I bet,” you know if they were having an issue at home or in school, or with a friend or something, they would be like, “I bet if I was just in America, like things would be better.” And I was like, the sad truth is that it's not necessarily, especially for immigrants. Like, it's rough, and coming from a family of immigrants, it's like, yeah, it can be difficult, you know.

Being in South Africa helped her to envision a life for her students in the United States and realized that those boys would face tremendous challenges. She also noticed that their view of the United States was inconsistent with her reality, in which America would not solve these boys’ problems, but rather, would offer some sad realities for them as both immigrants and black boys.

By the end of her experience, Michelle came to a more holistic understanding of her national identity and her relationship with the United States. She has decided to approach her reflection of her national identity not as optimistic, but as honest; she views her Americanness not as patriotic, but as all-encompassing:

The existence of a program like the Fulbright ... I'm really fortunate to have been able to take part in that and, so yeah, I think as far as my American identity it is figuring out a place- or realizing that I do belong in this story but not in a cheesy way, like “we're a melting pot.” Being honest about certain issues and problems within our politics or economics and different things like that. Just also being grateful for my experience as a Nigerian-American because all of that has come together to make sense and make me who I am.

By the end of her experience, Michelle grew more passionate about the cultural

foundations of education and art as a form of social commentary. Through her faith, her

complex understanding of her national identity, and her relationship-building skills, she

plans to make a positive impact in whichever community she is a part.

Frances: “Who cares what I’m thinking? It’s about these little nuggets.” As

referenced in her narrative in chapter 3, Frances works at an education non-profit that supports high school students in her city as they prepare to pursue higher education. Her commitment to education as a career was influenced significantly by her time in

Gorontalo, Indonesia, where she spent nine months teaching English to children in a

Muslim primary school. The narrative that follows illuminates Frances’ journey through learning about Islam, understanding herself as an American, and making connections with students.

National identity: “I would like to have one.” Before she began her English

Teaching Assistantship in Indonesia, Frances had a limited grasp on her national identity.

In fact, before the program, she felt like she “didn’t really have one,” and was prompted to think about it during her experiences abroad:

I had never really thought about my American identity before I like had to. And you really have to think about your identity when, or at least I did when I was in Indonesia because people asked me about it all the time, umm, so yeah, before I went, I don't know, I didn't really have one. Because there is no specific American culture, so I didn't really.

As she embarked on her journey as a Fulbright scholar, Frances confronted her

Americanness in a variety of ways that helped her to better understand her role as a cultural ambassador within the context of an English Teaching Assistantship in

Indonesia. Through interactions with students, peers, and colleagues in Indonesia,

Frances was able to become more cognizant of the existence of her American identity.

Islam through an American Lens. Frances shared that, although there is a

significant Muslim population in the United States, she hoped that her time in Indonesia

would help her better understand the Islam both theologically and culturally:

I wanted to gain a much more intimate knowledge of Islam, which I think I did. And I was lucky, and I put that in my application, that I was interested in Islam, so I think that's why I was placed in the school that I was in and in the town that I was in because, I mean I had a couple of friends who were about my age that were Christian, but I had like literally two. And then everybody else that I knew was Muslim. There are a lot of different types but, like, some people are really, really pious, and some people are like culturally Muslim, so I got to know the religion very well.

And I was lucky that being in such close proximity to students who, when they're younger, they're like a little bit more open and they're just more honest, like they don't have a politicized opinion or anything. So, I was really lucky to be able to get close to the boys dormitory was right across from my house and I got to be pretty close with some of the boy students, who were really curious about Christianity because they didn't really know anybody who was Christian. We got to have some really interesting conversations. I feel like I got to know a lot more about the religion other than just taking a class on it. But like, how it operates and what the values are and how those manifest in life.

Because she had lived in the same American city for her entire life, she felt that

interacting with a Muslim-majority culture would be critical in pursuing her career

interests of working with the Muslim community in the United States. In many ways, her

hopes were answered in her interactions with students and community members in

Gorontalo. Through these interactions, she was able to represent herself as an American

and find the knowledge of Islam that she sought in her pursuit of the Fulbright English

Teaching Assistantship.

One specific interaction that Frances had with her students in exchanging cultural knowledge about faith and religion was with some of the boy students who lived near her at the school. The boys approached her to ask her questions about Christianity and other religions that they had never had the chance to ask anyone before. Her willingness to be open in discussions about religion helped her better understand her identity as an

American as open and flexible in the context of her Muslim school in Indonesia:

One of the boys was a little older, he was a senior so I think he was 17 or 18, and he was like, his voice got a little bit quieter and he was like, “Miss... can we talk in your house?” And I was like, “yeah okay, sure.” So we like went in my little house and then he seemed like super nervous. Then another younger student came with him who I like... he was one of my students so I l knew him a lot better and he was a little bit better at English, so he came in too. And he looked at me and he was like “Miss, is it okay if we close the door?” And I was like, “yeah, sure, that's fine.”

So, the reason, we ended up having to close the door is because we talked for like two hours about religion. And the reason that they felt so nervous was because they felt it wasn't okay to be so curious about Christianity, like, they didn't want to be mistaken as... I don't know, that kind of exploration isn't really promoted, so it was kind of like a little bit taboo to be asking such open questions about Christianity. Like, he asked me about the Holy Trinity, and like what does that mean, and they were very specific, very smart questions that he just hadn't had the opportunity to ask anybody about because, A) none of the older people in his life would know the answers to those, and B), being so inquisitive about like really specific aspects of another religion would kind of be seen as like... I don't know what the right word would be, but like blasphemous, you know, that kind of thing (laughs).

These conversations, which she initially saw as a way to develop her own understanding of Islam and the relationship the religion has with her own worldview, connected Frances to what she perceived as her real purpose at the school: building trusting relationships with her students:

But, you know, it was really great because it gave me a chance to like... because I'm not super religious but I was raised Catholic, so, but it gave me a chance to like talk about my religion and my doubts about it because I was like, it's okay to have doubts, like this is what it is but like this is what I think about it. Then, it also gave me a really open forum to ask them about Islam when it was just the three of us, there were no external pressures, so that was like, and that was in February so that was.... that was like the six month mark, which is when you really start to feel comfortable, and that was a big milestone for me. Getting really close to my students and that was when I felt like I understood what my real purpose was there. It was like, not only to teach English, which like, that was what I was there for, but like, my real role there was to be somebody that these kids could come to and like ask about things that they were curious about and get a real answer.

This conversation is representative of the relationships that Frances was able to build with her students during her time in Indonesia. These relationships were so meaningful that by the end of the program, she even felt resentful toward some American values and wished that she could have stayed in Indonesia for 9 more months. However, her positive and life-changing experience was not free of challenges. Her identity as a white

American woman caused her to address external factors such as community members and students in Gorontalo.

Feeling like a Prop: White and American in Gorontalo. Frances’ presence in

Indonesia, especially in a city without tourist attractions, disrupted the community in various ways, sparking an interest among many community members In fact, a primary difficulty that Frances faced was related to her responsibility as a representative of the

United States while also feeling isolated. As one of the few white people in her town,

Frances often tried to challenge assumptions that were made about her Americanness, despite cultural and language barriers:

Gorontalo as a whole has about 800,000 people, which is big. But, I guess the small part that I lived in, like word just got around. And even in that town, there 71

were like three white people that were living there consistently. So everyone just knew who we were because it was so rare. Like people don’t really visit Gorontalo, as like a tourist spot. Umm, so anyway, just like being the only one and getting all that attention was more difficult than… well I didn’t imagine that I would get that much attention, but like, people made a lot of assumptions about me because I was white.

And then getting all of that unwanted attention, especially when I didn’t speak the language very well, like not even being able to communicate with people when they would come up to me and want to take a picture, I like couldn’t even have like a meaningful conversation. Umm, sometimes I kind of felt like a prop, so that was kind of weird. But, it's kind of like the Fulbright program itself promotes that like you are a cultural ambassador. Both once you're there and when you come back. So, that was kind of the point that was like drilled in, just by like being in the program.

Another participant, Sam, shared Frances’ sentiments of feeling isolated as the only

American, especially because the Czech Republic is a particularly homogenous society..

In Sam’s experience in the Czech Republic, even when he learned to speak Czech, he was expected to be the town’s English practice partner and representative of the U.S.

Frances felt isolated because of the unwanted attention that she met in Indonesia, but she found little solace in her friends and family in the United States who had trouble identifying with her experience. After living in Indonesia for nine months, her role reversed - she was now a cultural ambassador to her friends and family for Indonesia, as she began to identify with some critical aspects of Indonesian culture. Having felt little identification with her American identity before pursuing her Fulbright experience, her time in Indonesia contributed to the full scope of her national identity, making it more complex than before. This experience made her feel separated from her American identity in some ways. In fact, upon her return to the United States, she felt isolated by the American people that she loved dearly:

In Indonesia, as long as your family was healthy and happy and you had a bowl of rice to eat, you were feeling great. Everything else could wait if it needed to wait. Nothing was of the utmost importance. Nothing needed to get done right now. Nothing was worth getting upset about. As long as your core things were in a good way. I never felt rushed or just the values were so pure. Then I got back here and I started working, and just even being around my friends and family, the value system was just so different and people were so much more stressed out, and the things that people felt were important to spend time worrying about or to talk about just didn't seem right to me anymore.

I felt kind of alienated towards people that were my closest friends, especially because this was a huge deal for me to be gone for nine months, totally into this culture, and people want to ask about it for about 15 minutes, and then that's about it. Which I totally understand. They're not going to sit there and listen to me talk about it all day. They're satisfied with hearing a funny anecdote and seeing a couple of pictures, and then they want to talk about what they did at the bar this weekend. It was rough, because that was still a huge part of me, but it wasn't a huge part to them at all. Nobody really understood what it was like or how I was feeling.

Balancing this dichotomy between American representative and Indonesian

representative proved to be personally challenging for Frances as she navigated her

identity as American and her responsibility as a cultural ambassador for the Fulbright

program. Although she questioned if she identified with various aspects of American

culture, her interactions with students led her to defend the American identity as a

comfortable and welcoming place that Muslim people can safely call home.

In defense of America. Like Michelle, not only did Frances feel a responsibility

for being a positive representative of the United States because of her identity as a

Fulbright scholar, she also consistently answered student questions about the United

States due to her identity as an English teacher. When Frances first had conversations about the United States with her Indonesian peers, colleagues, and students, she felt particularly defensive of the American national identity. In fact, her sentiments are

representative of the other participants’ reflections as well; all of the participants of the

study expressed in some way that they felt the need to defend the United States,

especially when students and peers found the vast majority of their education about U.S.

culture and identity from media such as news, television, and movies. In the face of

criticism of the United States, Frances found significance in clarifying her perception of

the truth in terms of Americanness:

Having to explain to people like Americans are all different colors and all different religions, and you can choose whatever you want! That kind of like blew people's minds, which was weird. So like, it came in... it was a pretty like unified opinion of America. The only people I met that had a more informed view of what America was like were those that were fluent in English and like there were people that were about my age. So the only people that I knew that had a more accurate opinion had actually like been to the U.S. Otherwise, yeah, it was weird how unified the opinion was about the U.S.

That perception made me more, I don't want to say like proud, but it made me more... I didn't realize I would want to defend my country, I would be like, no, it's not like that, it's like this, and like we have like these cool things. It's not like all of this… what America was actually like because I kind of took it on as like my personal mission to like give the people in my town a better vision of what the United States was actually like. It made me reflect on it a lot, like people would say the same things, and I would think like, “is that true, why would people think that that's true?”, and, like, well what about me is different than what their perception is?

Not only was Frances moved to defend the American identity as a whole, but she also wanted to illustrate her uniqueness in comparison with the overall perception of

Americanness; these feelings developed both from her personal growth in her identity and her responsibility as a cultural ambassador:

I wanted people to like me and respect me for who I was as an individual, and I often felt as though I received positive attention solely for the fact that I was American and the assumptions that went along with that. I wanted to be understood on the basis on my individual characteristics, not for the idea of what my characteristics might be based on where I was from. Like, you know, I have 74

like these values, and like... so yeah, it did because I didn't want to be seen as like another white American woman, umm, so, yeah it totally did, like, it made me want to, I think that's what really fueled learning Indonesian, because I wanted to be able to like speak to people in their language and like explain like who I was and that I wasn't just like, I don't know, another like, that I didn't just speak English. So yeah, it just made me like, want to prove that like my own identity as an American was just like multi-faceted as America is as a whole.

The dissonance that Frances confronted within herself represents an awakening of her

American identity that she wanted to be unique from a learned identity that was informed both by her socialization in the United States and the comparative conversations she encountered in Indonesia.

Coming to terms with a negative perspective. During conversations about the

United States that she had with students, Frances had to confront her American identity in an uncomfortable way. While some of the questions that her students asked were seemingly silly, others made Frances feel defensive toward the United States. While defending America’s position toward Islam, a central interest of hers, she also reflected on her own position toward “Western-Muslim relations:”

I had this group of girl students that would come over to my house and hang out in between classes and one time they were asking me questions about the United States and what it's like and that kind of stuff, and like, the assumptions that like young Indonesian students have about Americans are hilarious. It's like, what do you eat? And I'd be like, well we eat lots of things. “You eat bread, right? That's what Americans eat.” “Well, I mean sure, sometimes.” But like, that was their assumption, was like, Americans eat bread. And that's it, so that was funny, but umm, we were talking about the U.S. and they were asking me all of these questions and that sort of stuff, and them umm, they asked, like, “Miss, would we be able to go to America?” And I was like, “Yeah, of course!” like, you know, “That's kind of what America is like, of course you can come to America.” And they're like, “Well, but we're Muslim.” And I was like, “Well, that doesn't matter, there are lots of Americans that are Muslim.” And they're like, “But Americans hate Muslims, right Miss?” And I was like, “Oh my god!”

That's when I had like this horrible realization of what, how the U.S. is perceived abroad. It was like... they didn't even look like scared or afraid, that was just like, that was it. “Americans hate, like Americans don't really like Muslims, right? Like, we wouldn't be able to go there and live there.” So, that was a time when I reflected on it and I really didn't like that that was the assumption and that's kind of informing where I'm going now. Umm, but I also, like, I kind of had to lie when I answered, because I didn't want to be honest... like, well, there are a lot of people that don't like Muslims. I mean, so that was like of weird when I like, they asked me that questions and my automatic response was like, “No, Americans don't hate Muslims.” Like, “You would be totally safe in the U.S., you'd be very welcome.”

Frances felt compelled to reassure her students that America was a safe and welcoming place for her young Muslim students. However, upon reflection, she felt that her assertions were contrary to what believed to be true about America and its citizens:

But when I thought about it, I was like, I just straight-up lied, like, that's not a total lie, but there are some kind of ugly things about America. And there's such a positive, for the most part, a positive view from the Indonesian perspective because there's this like wonderful free place, and there are like all these cool cities and tall buildings and all of this new, interesting stuff, and like they just see it as this like.. It’s like this dreamland for them. But like, it's not, and that… that... it sounds bad but, like, being a cultural ambassador for the U.S., I kind of came to terms with a more negative perspective. Because it is great in many ways, but, umm, I had to like really think about the fact that there are some not so nice parts, and maybe I should have been a little bit more honest with them, but, I don't know.

Frances’ interactions with students during her time in Indonesia helped her understand her own understanding of American identity as it intersected with cultural diplomacy and found herself at a crossroads between pride and discomfort - a feeling she describes as

“coming to terms with a more negative perspective.”

It’s not about me. After immense reflection, Frances realized that her personal and professional development were not as salient as the responsibility toward her students. In fact, rather than focusing on her personal benefit upon return from Indonesia,

she felt compelled to share the successes and life stories of her Indonesian students to her friends and family:

I think I just wanted people to know how awesome my students were. A lot of people were like, oh my god, you're so lucky, it's so warm there. It's so cold here in December. I was like, that's not even the point. That doesn't matter. I think I really wanted to communicate to people how awesome my students were and especially they were Muslim and this is what Islam was like for them, and this is what it means to them. I think I wanted to try and get that across too when I was talking to people in private.

Frances’ relationships with her students helped her to see national identity in a new way.

At an end-of-the-year English competition, she took her best English student with her to

Jakarta and met many other Indonesian students who shared their pride and love for

Indonesia through storytelling, dance, and other festivities. This event, which she

described as the highlight of her experience, influenced her thinking about her own

identity. She realized that she was not proud of her Americanness in the same way that

her Indonesian students were proud of their Indonesian identities:

I think if anything, my Fulbright experience made me aware of my lack of a solid American identity, and the fact that I would like to have that here. When my students were talking about their Indonesian identity and how much it meant to them and how proud they were to be Indonesian and how they wanted to share all these things with all the people of the world and that's why they were glad they could speak English because they could tell people about how great Indonesia was - I don't really have that feeling. When they were asking me about America, I wasn't like, oh my god, let me tell you about America and how amazing it is. I was like, what do you want to know?

Frances felt a lack of national identity in comparison to her Indonesian peers and

students. Frances saw her American identity as a white woman from the Midwest as

vague and indefinable; she desired a more clear answer to the question: what is my

national identity? Because of the vagueness she felt, she self-invented an identity and

aims to be a cultural ambassador for Southeast Asia and Islam:

I think because there's not a distinct American culture it's a little bit harder to come up with your American identity, because you have to self-invent in a way. There are not a lot of cultural cues around you instructing you on what that feels like. I think just the dichotomy between me as an American and my students as Indonesian, and how aware they were of who they were culturally compared to me. That made me super aware of any lack of that. To be honest, I haven't really done any work on that since I've been back. I've mostly tried to be a cultural ambassador for Islam and Southeast Asia. I haven't really done a whole lot of work in terms of my identity. Because to be honest, that didn't feel like the biggest takeaway from my time there. It wasn't really about me per se. For me it was completely about my students, which is not what I expected going into it.

Like Frances said, her biggest takeaway was the relationship she had with her

students and the positive impact she was able to have on their education and growth.

Another participant, Spencer, cited his time in Hamburg, Germany as an influential

experience for him to develop relationships with fellow educators and become committed

to pedagogy and education. Frances shared the sentiment of relationship-building as a

primary focus of her experience. In other words, rather than building a national identity

that revolved around her own consciousness, much of her reflection about her Fulbright

experience revolved around her positive relationships with her students:

I expected it to be about me. I like teaching, I like students, so I was excited about that, but it was more like I'm 21 years old and I want to travel and learn things and expand my horizons. So it was more centered around how the experience would be for me, but getting into it, once I met these little kiddos, it's like, well, who cares what I'm thinking? It's about these little nuggets.

By the end of her experience, Frances understood her national identity in a new way, but still engaged with some cognitive dissonance because of its indefinable nature. However,

78 the aspect of her experience that influenced her the most, her relationships with students, have begun to define various decisions in her life. Frances plans to apply her Fulbright experiences to an educational setting working with Muslim-American and immigrant populations.

Summary of Findings

When reflecting on their identities as Americans, Michelle and Frances began their journeys in distinct emotional and physical places. However, throughout their experiences, they both found that being a Fulbright scholar had impacted their experiences significantly because of various scenarios, contexts and relationships.

Michelle, as a Nigerian-American woman, found herself grappling with her hyphenated

Americanness is the South African context where race and class fit into boxes that look different that the ones that exist in the United States. When adapting to this new context, faith became salient and allowed her to place love at the forefront of her interactions with people and to become honest with herself about the many facets of the American ethos.

Frances, on the other hand, reflected on her experience in Indonesia as a time to connect with students and embrace the Indonesian culture that they were willing to share with her. Some of her national identity embodied her mission to share the positive aspects of Islam and Southeast Asian identity that she came to know during her time in

Indonesia. Although Frances often felt compelled to defend the United States, especially with regards to the American willingness to love and accept outsiders like her students, she began to come to terms with some major problems that faces American society in its embrace of people and their differences.

In the following chapter, I illuminate how the findings relate to prior research on the subjects of national identity and cultural diplomacy. Furthermore, I suggest practical solutions for government officials, and student affairs practitioners and educators, and avenues for future research on the subject of college students and national identity. By integrating this study into the conversation of current research, the participants’ stories will contribute to the knowledge of how national identity and cultural diplomacy intersect within higher education.

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Narrative inquiries require ongoing negotiations between researcher and

participant; these negotiations center on relationships, purpose of research, and transitions

(Clandinin, 2006). As I worked with the participants to develop their narratives and

represent their experiences as a Fulbright scholar, I regularly revisited the research

questions and the purpose of the study to understand how it will contribute to the greater

academic and professional conversation around government-sponsored exchange. As the study culminates in a discussion of how this study on national identity and cultural diplomacy speaks to the literature that currently exists, I also look forward to how the conversation can be ongoing in the future. Additionally, I outline why the conversation should continue as more and more students and scholars cross national borders.

National Identity in the Findings: The Fulbrighters’ Perspectives

The findings of this study were consistent with many assertions made by scholars who study the nation and national identity. National governments invest in the development of the national identity because it provides immense economic, political, and social benefits to the nation as a whole, and especially for those in power (Andreouli

& Howarth, 2013). The implementation of national identity infiltrates many aspects of society, including media, education, industry, and political discourse; because the conversations around a nation’s social and cultural values are so prevalent in various

aspects of society, they impact the way individual actors behave and view themselves

(Smith, 1982). The narratives of the participants illuminate how societal norms and

expectations influence individuals’ self-perception when situated in a foreign context.

Hyphenated American

In student development theory, Abes, Jones, & McEwen’s Reconceptualized

Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI) (2007) provides a visual model for students’ identity development that considers their context. This model outlines that it is not only important to consider that a person has more than one identity, but it is critical to consider the role of privilege and oppression in those intersecting identities. This study illustrates how Fulbright scholars’ contexts abroad and roles as cultural diplomats create a new environment for meaning-making, in particular as it relates to intersections of national identities with their other identities.

In the RMMDI, individuals perceive social identities through a meaning-making filter. This filter allows the individual to factor the current life context into the way they perceive their social identity as salient. In Michelle’s narrative, she expresses in various ways that her American identity does not exist independently, but rather, it always exists with a hyphen alongside the marker “Nigerian-.” Michelle’s expression of national identity is consistent with many scholars’ conceptions of national identity relying significantly on assimilation to norms and values in order to be able to claim that particular identity (Gutierrez, 2001; Anderson, 1982; Smith; 1991).

For example, Gutierrez (2001) asserts that nations control the ability to claim a national identity through policies and diplomacy such as naturalization policies and

82 otherwise rewarding people on their ability to assimilate. The government not only controls who can claim the identity that is tied to that particular nation, but the expected norms and values are reinforced through societal behaviors (Anderson, 1982). Michelle’s claiming of the American identity as never fully American but always expressed with a hyphen between her other national allegiance aligns with the arguments made by the foundational scholars of nation and national identity; in other words, the way Michelle feels about her hyphenated Americanness is consistent with the idea that national identity at its essence means homogeneity among a national ethos (Anderson, 1982; Smith, 1991;

Gutierrez, 2001). As a representative of the United States, Michelle, along with several of the other participants, felt compelled to define their Americanness in their contexts as cultural diplomats.

On the other hand, national identity is not always expressed by individuals in a singular way. Stetzl and Seligman (2009) use multiplicity as a framework to analyze the way people who multiple national identities place value on certain cultural norms and expectations that are placed on them due to nationality. In their study, Stetzl and

Seligman surveyed Canadian nationals with Asian descent. When primed to answer a survey about their values as Canadians, participants of the study tended to answer differently than when they answered through the lens of their Asian identity. In particular, when they were primed to answer as Canadians, they valued universalism and self-direction, whereas when primed to answer as Asians, they valued community and tradition significantly more. Michelle spoke of her national identity as a dichotomy,

identifying in which spaces she felt either aspect of her national identity was more

salient.

The way Michelle expressed her national identity as varying based on context is

consistent with Stetzl and Seligman’s study, which illustrates how values change due to

multiplicity in national identity. In this study, participants discussed how their

responsibility to the United States as Fulbright scholars prompted them to think

differently about their personal values. Specifically, participants noted that their role as

Fulbright scholars abroad influenced them to represent values of inclusion, independence,

and security. This study affirms the idea that identity salience influences behavior. When

primed to be representatives of the United States through a prestigious program like the

Fulbright U.S. Student program, Fulbright scholars’ national identity may become more

salient.

Faith as a Filter

Discussions of faith and spirituality both intra- and interpersonally were central to students’ experiences as Fulbright scholars. Participants not only held their own faiths as filters through which to make meaning of their experiences, but they also used faith within the host culture as a touchstone by which to connect with others. Recently, scholars have been exploring the relationship between international education and spirituality; in particular, they argue that study abroad indeed influences students’ understandings of their spirituality. (Clemens, 2014; Stephenson, 2011; Wolcott &

Motyka, 2013). However, the findings of this study suggest that spirituality serves as a

filter, rather than study abroad serving as a catalyst for thought about spirituality as much

of student affairs literature on the topic suggests.

For example, in Michelle’s narrative, the intersections of her national and racial

identities were salient, while her faith served as a unifying lens through which to make

sense of and ground her work and experience as a Fulbright Scholar. Her experience

reflects the works of Stewart (2009), who explored black students’ multiple identities

through a qualitative study that found that black students see their multiple identities

through a spiritual core. In other words, spirituality served as a unifying core of their

identities through which all other facets of their lives are filtered. In this study, Michelle

expressed that her faith was not necessarily impacted by her varied context as a Fulbright

scholar, but rather, that it remained a constant filter through which to view life.

In this study, participants were prompted to consider their cultural and spiritual values in how they behaved in the context of their role as Fulbright scholars abroad. In

Wolcott and Motyka’s 2013 study, they explore the case of a woman studying abroad in

Paris. They found that she had to emotionally reconcile many of the symbolic values that she assigned to her national and spiritual identities because of the spiritual Jesuit pedagogy in which she was immersed during her time in Paris. In this study, Frances’ experiences affirm that reconciliation of symbolic values can be a result of international exchange; Frances serves as a teacher in a Muslim high school, a context that influenced her to question her own personal symbolic values because of the spiritual undertones to her teaching experience.

Participants in this study utilized spirituality as a filter or meaning-making tool during their experiences as Fulbright scholars. The concept of the unifying core presented by Stewart (2009) is an aspect of the literature that significantly affirms that spirituality was significant to the participants of this study, especially as they interacted with members of their host country and learned to understand and respect their cultural values.

Spirituality is one of many aspects of identity that participants expressed were salient as they reflected on their experiences in the Fulbright program. In some cases, rather than feeling responsible to the United States for the work that they were expected to do during their time abroad, they turned to their spiritual values of love and respect to motivate their journey.

Fulbrighters as Cultural Diplomats

Not only did the findings of this study illuminate the participants’ understandings of their own national identity, but they also exemplified the impact the cultural diplomacy has on their behaviors and perceptions of self. The Fulbright Program is one of the United

States’ most prominent efforts to maintain and even improve relationships with foreign nations; students and scholars who participate in these programs are not only participants for the sake of their own learning and development, but they also serve as cultural diplomacy tools on behalf of the U.S. government (Schneider, 2009). In the findings of this study, participants describe how their role as a cultural ambassador on behalf of the

United States influenced both the way they portrayed American culture to others and the way they perceived it for themselves.

Defending American Identity

Anderson (1982) explores the concept of the nation as an entity or concept for which individual actors are willing to kill and die. National identity encourages people to pledge allegiance to their nation, foster loyalty, and speak positively on behalf of their nations regardless of any personal doubts that an individual might experience (Andreouli

& Howarth, 2013; Dolby, 2004). In this study, the theme of defending the United States to peers and students abroad emerged from the data; all of the participants found themselves painting the United States in a positive light to people in their host country, especially when confronted with more negative aspects of American identity.

Literature that discusses national identity as it relates to college students elaborates upon students’ national identities in new contexts – American or otherwise.

For example, Dolby (2004), in her study of study abroad and national identity, found that students had before studying abroad, students had an unreflexive understanding of what it meant to be an American. In the findings of this study, Frances expressed that she had little grasp of her American identity before her time as a Fulbright scholar in Indonesia, which reflects the unreflexive understanding that Dolby found in her study as well.

Like the participants in Dolby’s study, Frances confronted cognitive dissonance surrounding what she knew to be true about the United States versus what her Indonesian peers and students were telling her. In turn, she felt compelled to defend the United

States. In general, participants expressed the sentiment that they wanted to portray the

United States in a more positive and accurate light than what members of the host country had learned from media.

Participants discussed the concept of being a cultural diplomat and how that term is engrained into participants of the program just by the mere fact of their participation.

Michelle expressed that she did not feel like a standard representative of the United States because of her minoritized identities as a black Nigerian-American woman. In the wake of the Barack Obama presidency, when many argued about the appropriateness of this representation of the United States (Lowndes, 2013), Michelle’s concerns reflect a national conversation about whose Americanness is truly validated in the eyes of both the

American people and global actors. In an America where even the most powerful leader’s

Americanness is questioned on the basis of multiple nationalities, race, and religion

(Lowndes, 2013), Michelle’s defense of America had to be filtered through her own lens of not feeling American enough.

The findings of this study suggest that their role as a cultural diplomat creates a unique dynamic between themselves and members of the host culture, which, in turn, influences the way participants see themselves as Americans. In a letter to all Donald

Trump from 1,500 Fulbright scholars (Tuboson, Dihn, & Downs, 2016), Fulbright alumni argued that peace and friendship were American values that must not be jeopardized through cuts in funding of the Fulbright program. In this study, all of the participants had been abroad in various capacities, including study abroad; however, they made the distinction between the Fulbright scholarship program and other programs in which they had previously participated, pointing to their unique role as cultural diplomats on behalf of the American government.

A Holistic Perspective

Aside from embracing an American identity and defending that identity to members of the host country, participants also confronted what Frances named “the ugly side” of American culture and values. In coming to terms with the complexity of their

American identity, participants confronted cognitive dissonance that shaped their ways of knowing and reconstructing their national identity when reflecting upon their time abroad. This dissonance speaks to the idea of identity reconstruction that is prevalent in student development literature (Evans et. al, 2010). For example, Pizzolato (2005) examined hundreds of written narratives and found that significant moments of disequilibrium in a student’s life that causes them to evaluate their life goals and sense of self; participants in this study experienced these moments of equilibrium, especially as they came to understand their American identity as more complex and even more negative than they had realized before their time as a Fulbright scholar.

In the findings of this study, participants were confronted with a variety of negative realizations about the United States – that peers from their host country feared visiting the U.S., that social injustices prevented opportunities for their friends and family, that members of their host countries were willing to identify discrimination and ask participants about it. In essence, their experiences in abroad and upon their return prompted them to collect a variety of perspectives to inform the way they thought about

America.

Rather than embracing the American identity as wholly positive as they learned in school, the participants of the study came to take ownership of their identity because of

the cognitive dissonance that they experienced, despite seeming “unpatriotic” at times.

Some participants even chose careers or educational paths that allowed them to challenge

others’ understandings of social issues in the United States, including English as a

Second Language education and Social Work. These findings affirm Pizzolato’s claim

that “provocative moments” prompt self-examination and shaping of life goals

(Pizzolato, 2005). Overall, participants completed their time as Fulbright scholars with a more complicated and nuanced understanding of their Americanness than before they were Fulbright scholars.

Limitations

Although the study relates to current literature, it is limited in various ways. The

boundaries of the study were clear - I was limited to exploring the Fulbright experience from a specific time frame and from selected points of view. While the small sample size of five students allowed me as the researcher and the participants to co-create a rich

narrative of their lived experiences, the sample also limits the study in its transferability;

the participants were from varying undergraduate institutions, in various fields of study,

and were placed in different countries, but they all were English Teaching Assistants.

In other words, scholars and practitioners looking to understand the experiences

of all people who have the experience of participating in a U.S. government-sponsored international exchange program will not find that information in this study. The instrument of the semi-structured interview allowed me as a researcher to develop a narrative illustrated patterns among the participants, but the method might be even more effective if expanded through further research. In that case, transferability to different

90 populations within the Fulbright alumni base would grow – for example, people of various gender and sexual identities, more students of colors, and people who participated in research grants rather than teaching grants.

Four of the five participants were white, which limited my understanding of experiences of Fulbright scholars of color in their national identity, for example; however, the racial and gender demographics are generally representative of the demographics of the Fulbright U.S. Student Program as a whole (Fulbright, 2016). All five participants were English Teaching Assistants, which excludes a large portion of program participants who are research grantees; if research grantees were included in the study, the findings of the study could have appeared differently.

Another significant limitation of the study was that there were several critical questions that I wanted to pursue through my analysis, especially as the data related to race and gender. However, I was committed to constructivism as a framework and chose not to pursue them. If I could write this paper differently in the future, I would certainly view the data through a more critical lens to understand how power and privilege played a role in the participants’ experiences. While these are certainly limitations of the study, they are also important in creating the rich, thick descriptions that are characteristic of a narrative inquiry and of qualitative research in general.

Areas for Future Research

With the proliferation of international higher education programs and resources, more exploration must be done on its impact on higher education, globalization, and individual actors like students and scholars. This study contributes to the greater literature

surrounding internationalizing higher education by focusing on a flagship program that

has held legitimacy in the United States since 1946. However, its specific focus on

national identity and cultural diplomacy in the higher education context addresses a

conversation could be expanded upon in a variety of ways. In particular, more research

could be done in the areas of program goals and effectiveness, impact of programs on

democracy worldwide, and more quantitative information about this specific area of

research.

If this particular study were to be expanded upon, more research could be done on

the program side, i.e. how the program learning outcomes and goals for students relate or

compare to the greater U.S. government goals. Many scholars assert that setting clear and

measurable learning outcomes is critical in conducting a useful assessment of an

educational program (Banta, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Park & Jacobs, 2011). Participants

expressed that the Fulbright administrators were “hands-off” during their time abroad, making their learning and transition back to the United States challenging, with few support resources.

The Fulbright Program is a long-standing and highly trusted program on a global scale, yet little research has been done on its effectiveness in terms of participant learning. A scholarly examination of the goals and learning outcomes set forth by the

Fulbright U.S. Student program might illuminate the utility of the program for United

States government as a whole and, in turn, provide students with a greater understanding of the intended impact of the program on their learning. Another way to explore the impact on participants is by exploring cognitive dissonance. Participants confronted

various instances of cognitive dissonance that resulted in internal conflict that sparked

changes in thinking and ideas. Future scholarship on cultural diplomacy and international

exchange programs could further research cognitive dissonance in this particular context.

Furthermore, more research could be done on how programs that are funded by

national hegemonies like the United States impact democracy or the implementation of

democratic structures in foreign nations. Participants in this study contemplated their host

country’s goals of embodying a perfect democracy and questioned if democracy is a

necessary value or goal for all nations when America’s model of democracy is imperfect.

Historically, national governments have consistently invested in foreign education in

order to promote and perpetuate democratic values (Spilimbergo, 2009). The findings of this study suggest the Fulbright program has a goal to perpetuate democracy as a value; however, little research has been done about the measurable effects that this program and ones like it have had on the countries that have hosted students from these programs.

The impact of the Fulbright program on national identity could also be studied

quantitatively, using survey data from a wide range of Fulbright alumni to better

understand trends in how international exchange programs influence national identity.

Another way to expand the research is through a longitudinal study in order to assess any

lasting effects in career choices or other behaviors for participants of the program.

Because the higher education literature has a gap in understanding of the impact these

programs have on our students and societies, an analysis of data from a larger sample

would benefit those scholars who seek to support, understand, and make changes in the

conversation surrounding national identity. Through scholarly literature, researchers can

93 create new knowledge surrounding these critical topics that impact the ways people see the world as democracy, diplomacy, and identity evolve in today’s social and political climate.

Implications for Practice

The findings of this study imply that participants of the Fulbright U.S. Student

Program face feelings of isolation and living up to expectations to defend America in their new foreign contexts. Through reflection, the participants were able to express how they came to terms with their American identities while also accepting a holistic view of the United States and all that it represents. These findings have several implications for practice for program administrators and student affairs practitioners, including more uniform guided reflection for program participants, greater transparency on intended impact of the program on both the participant and their communities, and a more intentional focus on the part of student affairs practitioners to understand and discuss national identity as a social identity.

Many scholars agree that guided reflection is instrumental in a student’s learning when participating in an experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984; Bass, 2014; Boud, D.,

Cohen, R., & Walker, D., 1993); however, the findings of this study imply that Fulbright scholars often feel that they do not have the opportunity to reflect on what they have learned or experienced during their time abroad, despite the expectations placed on them during their program orientation. Fulbright scholars are learning through their experiences abroad, but many of them do not have guided reflection toward the end or after their experience. End-of-program reflection facilitation varies by country, yet the

94 findings of this study note that many of the participants face similar challenges that could be directed toward learning through reflection. I suggest that program administrators create a reflection plan for participants of the program that is uniform regardless of country of participation. This reflection plan might include discussion of reverse culture shock, American identity, and one’s role as an ambassador for the host country in the

United States.

While the participants of the study were aware of their roles as a Fulbright

English Teaching Assistants in their respective host countries, they all acknowledged that

U.S. Fulbright administrators had a more passive role compared to their in-country counterparts during the program. While this practice is likely an intentional approach to partnership in facilitating the host country’s significant role in the participation of

Fulbright scholars in their communities (Fulbright, 2016; White, 2008), this approach also means that they participants do not have a strong grasp on what they are expected to gain or learn during their time abroad. Program administrators could implement U.S.- based orientations for all Fulbright scholars that outlines their learning outcomes and goals so that the participants of the program are not left with ambiguity in terms of their purpose.

What student affairs educators and practitioners can do to support not only

Fulbright scholars, but all students, is recognize national identity as a valid aspect of social identity. In much of the student affairs literature, and in turn, in most student affairs preparation programs, national identity is not discussed nearly as much as gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class; however, immigration, globalization, and

international education are prominent issues that influence higher education immensely.

Specifically, I recommend that educators incorporate scholarship about national identity into the classroom and invest in producing more scholarship surrounding college students and their relationship with that identity. National identity can be included in the conversation alongside the other social identities that are critical to the conversation in the field of student affairs. Colleges and universities must be equipped to educate

students with multiple national identities, international students, and undocumented

students who have made their home in the United States but are not recognized as United

States citizens. Student affairs preparation programs should provide the future student

affairs practitioners in their classrooms with strategies for supporting students as they

grapple with aspects of their national identity within a higher education context.

Finally, student affairs professionals should be aware of opportunities to listen to

and share with their students. Student affairs professionals may not have authority over

the curriculum of these programs, as they are created and implemented by the

government. However, these programs are long-standing and prestigious, and have an

impact on students in their development. Furthermore, student affairs professionals can

consider facilitating opportunities for reflection with these students upon their return,

which is not offered by the U.S. government. Many students do not have the opportunity

for structured reflection, despite the large impact the experience may have made upon

their learning and development.

Conclusion

This study explored the relationship between national identity and cultural

diplomacy by sharing the stories of several Fulbright scholars. Although the Fulbright

program is the United States’ most elite and respected cultural diplomacy and

international exchange program, little research has been done about the impact that this

program has on students and their identities.

This study aimed to better understand the experiences of Fulbright scholars as it

relates to their national identity, especially with regards to identity salience and meaning-

making. By using a constructive narrative inquiry approach, the participants and I became

partners in constructing their stories about their national identities as their perceptions

grew and evolved over time. The instrument of the semi-structured interview facilitated the collection of rich data that allowed for a greater understanding of how participants made meaning of their experiences as they relate to national identity.

The study found that, in the context of the Fulbright, participants felt defensive of their American identities, especially when confronted with negative aspects of American society by members of the host country; however, they also developed a more holistic understanding of what it means to be American, and in particular what it means to them as individuals. Some participants had little grasp of their American identity before they arrived to their host country, while others had spent much of their lives reflecting on their

American identity but saw it differently in the context of the Fulbright U.S. Student program. By highlighting their narratives, I better understand how having a responsibility

97 to be a representative of something much larger than you can both be a burden and a catalyst for personal growth.

Moving forward, my hope is that researchers and practitioners seriously consider how globalization is having an impact on higher education and, in turn, is influencing the way students see themselves as belonging to a nation – a very special type of community.

To conclude, I will once again refer to Benedict Anderson (1982), the scholar who first referred to the nation as an imagined community. He wrote,

Finally, it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.

As I reflect upon how scholars and practitioners can continue the work that we (my participants and I) have accomplished by sharing their stories, I challenge people to understand how this deep, horizontal comradeship makes a tangible and undeniable mark upon our students, our communities, and our colleagues. As always, by seeking to understand, we can create a more loving and accommodating society.

REFERENCES

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of

multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the

construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48,

1-22.

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal

world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3-25.

Anderson, B. (1982). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso.

Andreouli, E., & Howarth, C. (2013). National identity, citizenship and immigration:

Putting identity in context. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 43(3), DOI:

10.1111/j.1468-5914.2012.00501.x

Appadurai, A. (1993). Patriotism and its futures. Public Culture, 5(3), 411-429.

Banta, T. W. (2016). Rediscovering the Importance of Student Learning Outcomes.

Assessment Update, 28(6), 3-14.

Barrington, L. W. (1997). “Nation” and “nationalism”: Misuse of key concepts in

political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(4), 712-716.

Bass, R. (2012, March/April). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher

education. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(2).

Baumeister, R., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and

historical context. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 405-416.

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in

qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1993). Using experience for

learning. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (2016). Fulbright. Retrieved from:

https://eca.state.gov/fulbright

Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and

salience in identity theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 77(3), 231-252.

Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived

experience. Research Studies in Music Education, 27(1), 44-54.

Clandinin, D. J, & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in

Qualitative Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clemens, J. E. (2014). Studying Abroad: An Opportunity for Growth in Spirituality.

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Bowling Green University Library.

100

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Daly, A. J., & Barker, M.C. (2005). Australian and New Zealand university students’

participation in international exchange programs. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 9, 26-41.

Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity.

Comparative Education Review, 48, 150-173.

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change:

Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67(2), 243-251.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Exec. Order No. 13750. 3 C.F.R. (2016).

Exec. Order No. 13769. 3 C.F.R. (2017).

Fairbanks, E. (2014, March 28). Don’t Cut Fulbright! Its Benefits are Immense. New

Republic. Retrieved From: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117192/dont-cut-

fulbright-its-benefits-are-immense

Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding

and Public Diplomacy, 6(2), 97-103.

101

Feldman, R. (2013). Beyond goodwill: The Peace Corps’ contribution to national

security. Small Wars Journal. Retrieved from: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/

art/beyond-goodwill-the-peace-corps-contribution-to-national-security

Fossler-Lussier, D. (2012). Music pushed, music pulled: Cultural diplomacy,

globalization, and imperialism. The Journal of the Society for Historians of

American Foreign Relations: Diplomatic History, 36(1), 53-65.

Fulbright U.S. Student Program. (2016). History. Retrieved from

http://us.fulbrightonline.org/about/history.

Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Ong, A. D., & Phinney, J. S. (2013). National identity and perceived

discrimination predict changes in ethnic identity commitment: Evidence from a

longitudinal study of Latino college students. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 62(3), 406-426

Gearhart, G. D. (2014, May 5). The Fulbright Program: Too Important to Be Cut. The

Chronicle of Higher Education.

Gieser, J. D. (2015). A Sociocultural Investigation of Identity: How Students Navigate

the Study Abroad Experience. Journal of College Student Development 56(6),

637-643.

Gutiérrez, N. (2001). The study of national identity. In Modern roots: Studies of national

identity (p. 3-16). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. (Original work

published n.d.).

102

Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education,

55(3), 333-355.

Hedrick, C. (2013). The new Peace Corps. Yale Journal of International Affairs, 107(8),

107-135.

Hira, A. (2003). The brave new world of international education. World Economy, 26,

911-931.

J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (2012). Annual Report 2011-2012.

Washington D.C.

Jones, A. (2014, May 8). How to Lose Friends and Influence No One (The State

Department Way). Tom Dispatch. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/

post/175841/tomgram%3A_ann_jones,_how_to_lose_friends_and_influence_no_

one_%28the_state_ department_way%29/

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing

frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Kim, T. (2009). Shifting patterns of transnational academic mobility: a comparative and

historical approach. Comparative Education, 45:3, 387-403.

103

Keane, A. G. (2014, June 30). Obama Seeks Closer Ties with Chile During Bachelet

Visit. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/

articles/2014-06-30/obama-seeks-closer-ties-with-chile-during-bachelet-visit

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuh, G. (2016). Making Learning Meaningful: Engaging Students in Ways That Matter

to Them. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 145, 49-56.

Lebovic, S. (2013, August 11). The Fulbright, history’s greatest war-surplus program.

The Boston Globe. Retrieved From: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/

2013/08/10/the-Fulbright-history-greatest-war-surplus-program/

NiGDSEjkjLAcZcxcGowLBJ/story.html

Lowndes, J. (2013). Barack Obama’s Body: The Presidency, the Body Politic, and the

Contest over American National Identity. Polity, 45(4), 469-498.

Manser, N. M, Naughton, C. C., Verblya, M. E., Prouty, C., & Orner, K. (2015).

Improving the Global Competency of Graduate Engineers Through Peace Corps

Partnership and Long- Term International Service. Proceedings of the ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition (2153-5868), p. 1.

McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience and spatial

reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 486-493.

104

Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating

diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.

Mapesela, M. L. E, Alt, H., & Strydom, K. (2003). International competitiveness and

community development with specific reference to research on international

collaboration through co-operative academic programmes. South African Journal

of Higher Education, 17, 209-216.

NAFSA. (2015). Trends in U.S. study abroad. Available at

http://nasfa.org/Explore_International_Education/Advocacy_And_Public_Policy/

Study_Abroad/Trends_in_U_S_Study_ Abroad/

Nye, J.S. Jr. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.

Nye, J.S. Jr. (2004). Soft Power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Park, Y., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). The influence of investment in workplace learning on

learning outcomes and organizational performance. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 22(4), 437-458.

Peace Corps. (2016). History. Retrieved from: https://www.peacecorps.gov/about/history/

Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2014). Geographies of educational mobilities: Exploring

the uneven flows of international students. The Geographic Journal, 180(3), 246-

249.

105

Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., Jumakulov, Z. Kishkentaeva, M., & Ashirbekov, A. (2015).

Understanding the programmatic and contextual forces that influence

participation in a government-sponsored international student-mobility program.

The International Journal of Higher Education, 69, 173-188.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2005). Creating crossroads for self-authorship: Investigating the

provocative moment. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 624-641.

Rupp, J. C. (1999). The Fulbright Program, or the surplus value of officially organised

academic exchange. Journal of Studies in International Education, 3, 59-82.

Save Fulbright. (2014). Why #SaveFulbright Funding 2015 Is So Important.

SaveFulbright.Org. Retrieved From http://www.savefulbright.org/#section-21

Schneider, C. P. (2009). The unrealized potential of cultural diplomacy: “Best practices”

and what could be, if only… Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 39,

237-285.

Smith, A. D. (1991). National Identity. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press.

Smith, A. D. (2002). What is a nation. Geopolitics, 7(2), 5-32.

Spilimbergo, A. (2009). Democracy and foreign education. American Economic Review,

99(1), 528-543.

Stehr, N., & Ufer, U. (2010). On the global distribution and dissemination of knowledge.

International Social Science Journal, 60(195), 7-24.

106

Stelzl, M., & Seligman, C. (2009). Multiplicity Across Cultures: Multiple National

Identities and Multiple Value Systems. Organization Studies, 30(9), 959-973.

Stephenson, G. K. (11 August, 2011). Study Abroad and Spirituality: The Journeys of

Undergraduate Students in Developing Nations. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved

from University of Toronto Library.

Stewart, D. L. (2009). Perceptions of Multiple Identities Among Black College Students.

Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 253-270.

Sussman, L. R. (1992). The culture of freedom: The small world of Fulbright scholars.

Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Tubosun, K., Dinh, C., & Downs, B. (2016, November 11). An Open Letter from 1,500+

Fulbright Scholars Regarding the Election of Trump. Huffington Post. Retrieved

from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-from-1500-

fulbrighters-regarding-the_us_582b14aee4b02b1f5257a91b

United States Department of State. (2014). Fiscal Year Agency Financial Report.

Washington D.C.

White, B. P. (2008). Power, privilege, and the public: The dynamics of community-

university collaboration. New Directions for Higher Education, 152, 67-74.

Wilhelm, I. (2014, July 11). State Department Moves to Better Align Academic

Exchanges with Policy Goals. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved

107

from http://chronicle.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/article/State-Department-

Moves-to/147687

Wolcott, T., & Motyka, M. J. (2013). Subjectivity and Spirituality during Study Abroad:

A Case Study. L2 Journal, 5(2), 22-42.

Yon, D. (2000). Elusive culture: Schooling, race, and identity in global times. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

108

Appendix A: Recruitment Message

Email subject line: Invitation to Participate in Fulbright Research

Hello,

My name is Marisa Lally and I am a graduate student at The Ohio State

University. I am contacting you today to ask if you are interested in participating in a research study about study abroad. I am looking for students to sit down with me for 2 60 minute one-on-one interviews. At this interview I will ask you about your experiences in the Fulbright program and listen to you talk about your how you reflected upon your personal identities since returning to the United States. . I will also ask you to share with me any public blogs or social media posts that you created about your experience while participating the Fulbright Program.

You are eligible to participate in this study if you match the following criteria:

- Are 18 years or older.

- Currently enrolled fulltime from The Ohio State University.

- Participated in the Fulbright U.S. Student Program within the past five years.

If you match these eligibility requirements and are interested in participating in this study, please consider filling out this survey (link to survey) where I will ask you a few questions and for your email address to contact you. Unfortunately, I am unable to

109

provide any incentives for participation in this study at this time, however, I believe that

this could be a rewarding experience for those who participate through providing a new

space to reflect on past experiences. Please contact me at the email address provided

below if you have any questions, concerns, or would require accommodations to

participate in this study.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Best,

Marisa Lally

M.A. Candidate Higher Education and Student Affairs Dept. of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University [email protected]

110

Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer

111

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form

The Ohio State University Consent to Participate in Research

Study Title: Fulbright and national identity: A constructivist narrative inquiry

Researcher: Marisa Lally

Sponsor: Dr. Marc Johnston-Guerrero

This is a consent form for research participation. It contains important information

about this study and what to expect if you decide to participate.

Your participation is voluntary.

Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your

decision whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to

sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.

Purpose:

The purpose of this constructivist narrative inquiry is to understand the national identity development of students who participate in U.S. government international education programs.

Procedures:

112

You will engage in two one-hour long interviews. These interviews will be semi-

structured and will relate to your experience as a Fulbright scholar. You will also be

asked to provide the researcher with access to any public blogs or social media you

created during your experience in the program; however, your participation is not

contingent on your agreement to any level of participation.

Duration:

The interviews will be completed between November 1st, 2016 and November 30th, 2016.

You may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with The Ohio

State University.

Confidentiality:

Efforts will be made to keep your study-related information confidential. However, there

may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal

information regarding your participation in this study may be disclosed if required by

state law. Also, your records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to

the research):

• Office for Human Research Protections or other federal, state, or international regulatory agencies; • The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board or Office of Responsible Research Practices; • The sponsor, if any, or agency (including the Food and Drug Administration for FDA-regulated research) supporting the study.

113

Participant Rights:

You may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which

you are otherwise entitled. If you are a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision

will not affect your grades or employment status.

If you choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time

without penalty or loss of benefits. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal

legal rights you may have as a participant in this study.

An Institutional Review Board responsible for human subjects research at The Ohio State

University reviewed this research project and found it to be acceptable, according to

applicable state and federal regulations and University policies designed to protect the

rights and welfare of participants in research.

Contacts and Questions:

For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study, or you feel you have been harmed

as a result of study participation, you may contact Dr. Marc Johnston-Guerrero

([email protected]).

For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-

related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you

may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-

800-678-6251.

114

Signing the Consent Form

I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.

Printed name of subject Signature of subject

AM/PM Date and time

Printed name of person authorized to consent Signature of person authorized to consent for for subject (when applicable) subject (when applicable)

AM/PM Relationship to the subject Date and time

Investigator/Research Staff

I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting the signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given to the participant or his/her representative.

Printed name of person obtaining Signature of person obtaining consent consent

AM/PM Date and time

115

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Interview #1 Date: Location: Participant (using pseudonym or some other masked identifier):

1. Tell me about yourself.

2. Why did you apply to this particular international exchange program? a. How did you think it would affect your professional goals? Your personal goals? b. Did that perception change during or after completing the program?

3. What did you know about the U.S. Department of State and their international exchange programs before you participated in the program? a. How did the State Department orientation change your understanding of the experience? b. How did the State Department orientation change your understanding of the greater context of the program (i.e., the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. government in general, the government of the host country, etc.)

4. What did you hope to learn through your international exchange experience? a. How did your experience match your expectations? b. Were there specific experiences, situations, or people that contributed to this learning?

5. How did you perceive your national identity before you participated in the program? a. Tell me about a time you thought about your U.S. citizenship during your participation in the program. b. How your understanding of your American identity changed after participating in the program?

116

c. What situations or experiences led you to think about your identity as a U.S. citizen or American?

6. What did you learn about the host culture’s perception of America and Americans? a. Tell me about a time or situation that brought you to that understanding. b. Did that perception affect the way you saw your own American identity?

117

Appendix E: Follow-up Interview Protocol

Follow-up Interview Date: Location: Participant (using pseudonym or some other masked identifier):

1. According to your [blog, Facebook post, Instagram post, etc.], [insert experience here] was particularly significant to you. Tell me more about that experience and why it was significant to you. a. How did that experience relate to your identity as an American? b. Reflecting upon that post, do you feel the same way you did when you posted it?

2. You posted [a picture] on your [blog, Facebook post, Instagram post, etc.]. a. Where was it taken and what was is happening in it? b. What memories does this photo elicit for you?

3. How did your participation in social media influence your experience in the program? a. What role did it play for you socially? Academically? b. What differences and similarities did you notice, if any, between you and member of the host country in using social media?

4. When reflecting on your use of social media while participating in the program, how accurately do you your posts reflect your current understandings of your experience? a. How are your reflections similar? b. How do they differ now?

118